THE 


SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY ; 


OE, 


FVASSAOES 


IN   THE 


POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 


INCLUDING   THE 


CAUSES   OF  THE  WAR 

BETWEEN    THE     SECTIONS, 


WITH 


CERTAIN   RESULTS. 


BY 

WILLIAM  CHAUNCEY  FOWLER,  LL.  IX 


N  E  W    Y  0  11  K  : 
CHARLES    SCRIBNER    AND    COMPANY. 

1868. 


IV  PREFACE    TO    THE    NEW    EDITION. 

reign  States  in  the  management  of  their  internal  concerns ; 
who  are  responsible  for  that  usurpation  which,  even  until  now, 
under  the  pretence  of  making  slaves  freemen,  has  practically 

made  freemen  slaves. 

W.   C.   F. 

DURHAM,  CONN.,  July  1868. 


PREFACE. 

IN  the  year  1850,  the  week  before  Mr.  WEBSTER  delivered 
his  memorable  speech  on  the  seventh  of  March,  I  had  the  pleas 
ure,  in  Washington,  of  taking  tea  with  my  old  friend  and  class 
mate,  Governor  McDowELL,  then  a  member  of  Congress.  When 
I  rose  to  take  my  leave  of  him,  he  said  he  was  not  willing  to 
part  without  telling  me  of  a  burden  which  was  resting  on  his 
mind.  "  I  am  convinced,  my  dear  friend,"  said  he,  "  that  there 
will  be  a  disunion  of  the  States.  There  is  a  great  change  going 
on  at  the  South.  Two  years  ago,  when  I  delivered  my  speech 
for  the  Union,  all  were  melted  down  into  a  common  feeling  of 
love  for  the  whole  country.  Men  of  all  parties  in  the  House 
gave  me  their  hands  and  congratulated  me  on  what  they  were 
pleased  to  call  my  patriotic  speech. 

"  But  now  some  of  the  same  men  are  not  willing  to  hear  a 
word  on  the  subject  of  the  Union.  I  am  not  in  the  councils  of 
these  Southern  men,  though  I  suppose  I  might  be,  if  I  would 
think  and  act  with  them.  Every  thing  is  tending  to  disunion  ; 
and  I  wanted  to  tell  you  so  before  you  return  to  the  North." 

As  he  said  this  to  me  in  earnest,  tender  tones,  and  with  eyes 
filled  with  tears,  I  felt  that  his  sad  forebodings  ought  to  be 
heeded,  and  their  grounds  investigated. 

ISTot  very  far  from  this  time.  I  made  the  acquaintance  of 
Judge  BURNET,  of  Cincinnati,  at  Union  Hall,  Saratoga,  and  was 
greatly  interested  in  his  intelligence,  wisdom,  and  patriotism. 
In  repeated  conversations,  he  said  to  me,  in  substance  :  "  These 


VI  PREFACE. 

words  often  tittered,  injuries  inflicted,  insults  offered,  naturally 
germinated  and  grew  into  deeds  of  violence  and  blood.  Dra 
gons'  teeth  had  been  plentifully  sown,  and  they  started  up  armed 
men.  And  yet  multitudes,  at  the  time,  were  so  ignorant  of  the 
prevalent  sectional  feelings  and  purposes,  that,  in  surprise,  they 
asked,  "  What  are  they  fighting  for  ? " 

The  people  of  the  two  sections  of  the  country,  are,  to  a  large 
extent,  ignorant  of  each  other,  and  hence,  in  their  estimate  of 
each  other's  institutions,  they  are  misled  by  illusions  of  the 
imagination. 

For  the  purpose  of  distributing  information  among  the  peo 
ple,  this  volume,  which  might  be  entitled  "  HISTORICAL  COLLEC 
TIONS,"  is  offered  to  various  classes  of  readers. 

I.  To  all,  whether  North  or  South,  who  are  ignorant  of-  the 
political  history  of  the  United  States,  and  who  have  not  an  op 
portunity  of  referring  to  original  sources. 

II.  To  all,  whether  North  or  South,  who  have  strong  sec 
tional  prejudices. 

HI.  To  all,  whether  North  or  South,  who  wish  for  the  res 
toration  and  the  preservation  of  the  Union. 

IY.  To  all,  whether  North  or  South,  who  wish  to  under 
stand  the  causes  of  the  war  between  the  sections. 

Y.  To  all,  whether  North  or  South,  who  value  the  prosper 
ity  of  the  country  more  than  they  do  the  success  of  their  party. 

YI.  To  all,  whether  North  or  South,  who  believe  that  mere 
ly  defeating  the  armies  of  the  Southern  States  will  bring  back 
the  Union. 

VII.  To  all,  whether  North  or  South,  who  wish  to  under 
stand  the  constitutional  relations  between  the  States  and  the 
Federal  Government. 

YIII.  To  all,  whether  North  or  South,  whose  hearts,  not 
limited  by  party  or  section,  are  large  enough  to  embrace  the 
interests  of  the  whole  country,  and  of  all  the  States. 


PREFACE.  Vli 

The  final  issue  of  the  sectional  controversy  lies  in  the  future, 
beyond  the  ken  of  mortal  vision,  wrapped  up  in  the  hollow  of 
God's  mysterious  hand.  He  only,  who  presides  over  the  des 
tiny  of  nations,  "  sees  the  end  from  the  beginning."  But 
though  thus  limited  in  vision,  man  can  gather  from  the  past  the 
lessons  of  wisdom  for  his  guidance  in  the  future.  And  may  we 
not  indulge  the  pleasing  hope  that  the  people  of  the  States, 
gathering  wisdom  from  the  mistakes  of  the  past,  in  the  sec 
tional  controversy,  may  become  qualified  to  enjoy,  in  the  long 
future,  the  blessings  of  union  under  the  FEDEKAL  CONSTITUTION  ? 

W.  C.  F. 

NEW  YORK,  1862. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

PADS 

Original  sectional  diversities, 7 

Additional  sectional  diversities, 1 

Bond  of  sympathy  between  the  colonies, 8 

Birth  of  the  spirit  of  Union, 9 

Sectional  feeling  yielding  to  love  of  country, 10 

Sectional  opinions  in  the  Continental  Congress, 10 

Proposed  sectional  Convention  of  the  Eastern  States, 11 

Sectional  feeling  in  the  Revolutionary  army, 12 

Remarks, 12 

CHAPTER    II. 

The  Constitutional  Convention, 14 

Navigation  Acts, 14 

The  slave  trade,       .                  16 

Proposal  of  Gouverneur  Morris, 16 

Debate  in  the  Convention  on  the  slave  trade,  and  navigation  acts,      .        .        .16 

Spirit  of  the  Committee  of  Eleven, 18 

Gain  and  loss  to  each  section  by  the  "  bargain," 19 

Virginia  not  a  party  to  the  bargain, 19 

Slaves  recognized  as  property  in  the  Constitution, 20 

The  word  "  slave  "  not  used  in  the  Constitution, 21 

Fugitive  slaves, 22 

Representation  and  taxation, 2$ 

Remarks, 24 

CHAPTER   III. 

General  Washington's  Administration, 30 

Duties  on  tonnage  and  imports, 30' 

Submission  of  the  South  to  these  duties, 31 

•  Sectional  discussion  of  slavery, ..32: 

Bank  of  the  United  States  a  sectional  measure, 

The  Excise  law  a  sectional  measure, 34 

Assumption  of  State  Debts  a  sectional  measure,  34 


X  CONTENTS. 

PACK 

Location  of  the  seat  of  Government  a  sectional  measure,         .  .35 

Bargain  in  Congress, 36 

Fugitives  from  justice  and  from  labor, 39 

Jefferson's  letter  to  General  Washington, 40 

Remarks, 41 

CHAPTER   IV. 

John  Adams'  Administration, .44 

Assertion  of  State  rights, 44 

Doctrine  of  State  rights, 45 

Luther  Martin's  letter,  with  the  opinions  of  Johnson,  Ellsworth,  Hamilton,  and 

Madison  and  others  on  State  rights  and  military  coercion,     .         .         .     46-52 
Remarks,         .  52 

CHAPTER    Y. 

Mr.  Jefferson's  Administration, 54 

Mr.  Jefferson  elected  by  the  States  voting  in  Congress  assembled,      .         .  54 

Sectional  spirit  of  the  times, 55 

Restrictions  upon  commerce, 58 

Sectional  opposition, 59 

The  purchase  of  Louisiana, 69 

Sectional  opposition, 60 

Remarks, 60 

CHAPTER   VI. 

Mr.  Madison's  Administration, 61 

•Sectional  opposition  to  commercial  restrictions, 62 

Sectional  opposition  to  the  war  of  1812, 63 

The  Hartford  Convention, 65 

Proposed  alterations  of  the  Constitution, •  65 

State  Commissioners  sent  to  Washington, 67 

Contemporaneous  views  of  Northern  men,  John  Lowell.  Gouverneur  Morris,  De- 

witt  Clinton,  John  Quincy  Adams, 67-71 

Remarks, 71 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Mr.  Monroe's  Administration, 76 

Restriction  of  slavery  in  Missouri  proposed  and  urged  by  Northern  men,    .         .       76 

Resistance  by  Southern  men, 77-79 

Great  sectional  excitement, 79 

The  compromise  bill  passed, 80 

The  compromise  not  carried  out  by  Northern  members,          ....     80-81 

Admission  of  Missouri, 82 

Remarks, 83 


CONTENTS.  Xi 

I 
CHAPTER   VIII. 

PAGI 

John  Quincy  Adams'  Administration, 88 

Tariff  of  1828, 88 

Mr.  Clay's  and  Mr.  Webster's  speeches  in  1824, 89,  90 

Protest  of  Georgia, 92 

Protest  of  South  Carolina, 94 

Remarks, 98 


CHAPTER    IX. 

General  Jackson's  Administration, 100 

-Nullification.     Hayne.    Webster, .  101 

Ordinance  passed  by  South  Carolina, 109 

Passage  of  the  Revenue  Collection  bill, 109 

Passage  of  the  Compromise  bill, 109 

Remarks, 110 

CHAPTER   X. 

Mr.  Van  Buren's  Administration, 116 

Mr.  Pinckney's  resolutions, 117 

Vermont  anti-slavery  resolutions,      .         .         .  118 

Mr.  Slade's  motion, 119 

Withdrawal  of  Southern  members,    .         .         • 124 

Mr.  Calhoun's  resolutions, 126 

Remarks, 128 


CHAPTER   XI. 

General  Harrison's  and  Mr.  Tyler's  Administration, 183 

Annexation  of  Texas,        .         .  .         . 133 

Proposal  of  Massachusetts  to  amend  the  Constitution, 18C 

Remarks, 186 


CHAPTER    XII. 

James  K.  Polk's  Administration, 137 

Tariff  of  1846, .  137 

Oregon  Territory, 144 

-  The  Wilmot  Proviso, ,  144 

Remarks, 146 

CHAPTER   XIII. 

General  Taylor's  and  Mr.  Fillmore's  Administration, 148 

Danger  of  Disunion, 149 

.  Clay's  Compromise  resolutions, 149 

160 


Xll  CONTENTS. 

PACK 

Mr.  Webster's  speech, ..164 

Mr.  Clay's  speech, 167 

Remarks, 170 

CHAPTER   XIV. 

Gen.  Pierce's  Administration, 175 

Appeal  of  Senators  Chase,  and  Sumnerand  others  on  the  subject  of  the  repeal  of 

the  Missouri  Compromise, 176 

Clerical  protest, 178 

Remarks, 184 

CHAPTER   XV. 

Mr.  Buchanan's  Administration, 187 

Is  the  Republican  party  sectional  ? .        .188 

The  Dred  Scott  decision, 191 

Helper's  Book, 193 

-The  John  Brown  invasion, 197 

Sympathy  with  Brown, 200 

Personal  liberty  bills, 201 

Is  slavery  a  creature  of  local  law  ? 202 

Northern  Abolition  and  disunion  sentiments, 204 

Caleb  Gushing  in  Boston,  1859, .  209 

Davis's  resolutions  on  the  relations  of  the  States  to  the  General  Government,  .  210 

Power  of  Congress  over  Territories, 211 

Territory  of  Louisiana, 211 

Who  were  the  parties  to  the  constitutional  compact  ?         .        .         *        .         .213 

Mr.  Webster's  resolutions  in  the  Senate  in  1832,  ....         .         .  214 

Ordinance  of  secession  passed  by  Georgia, 216 

Mr.  Madison  on  secession, 217 

Declaration  of  the  Convention  of  South  Carolina  of  the  causes  of  secession,        .  224 

The  peace  Congress. 229 

Mr.  Crittenden's  resolutions, 229 

Letters  of  Senators  Bingham  and  Chandler, .......  230 

Remarks, 232-268 


THE  SECTIONAL  CONTROVERSY. 


CHAPTER  I.  -  " 

ORIGINAL    SECTIONAL   DIVERSITIES. 

BEFORE  the  American  Revolution,  there  were  on  the  great 
eastern  slope  of  North  America,  along  the  shores  of  the  At 
lantic  Ocean,  thirteen  separate  colonies.  These  colonies  were, 
indeed,  connected  with  England,  as  their  mother  country ;  but 
in  their  relations  to  each  other  they  were  independent  and  sov 
ereign  nations. 

Moreover,  they  were,  to  some  extent,  alien  to  one  another 
in  race,  in  religion,  and  in  political  affinities.  The  inhabitants 
of  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  and  Connecticut,  were  de 
scended  from  that  class  of  the  English  who  were  Puritan  in 
their  religion,  and  Roundhead  in  their  politics.  The  inhab 
itants  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey  were  largely  descendants 
of  the  Dutch.  The  English  Quakers,  the  original  settlers,  gave 
a  certain  character  to  Pennsylvania,  just  as  the  Roman  Catho 
lics  did  to  Maryland,  just  as  the  prelatical  cavaliers  did  to 
Virginia,  iust  as  did  the  French  Huguenots  to  South  Carolina. 

ADDITIONAL   SECTIONAL   DIVERSITIES. 

But  other  diversities  were,  in  process  of  time,  created  by 
climate,  education,  industrial  pursuits,  social  institutions,  and 


8  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

government.  The  people  of  New  Hampshire,  New  Jersey, 
Virginia,  the  Carolinas,  and  Georgia,  were  under  what  was 
called  a  Provincial  Government,  in  which  the  Governors  were 
appointed  by  the  Crown.  The  people  of  Maryland,  Pennsyl 
vania,  and  Delaware,  were  under  what  was  called  a  Proprietary 
Government,  in  which  the  Governors  were  appointed  by  certain 
individuals  called  proprietaries.  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island, 
and  Connecticut,  were  under  what  was  called  a  Charter  Gov 
ernment,  in  which  the  Governor  was  appointed  by  the  freemen 
of  the  colony.  In  Massachusetts,  after  1692,  the  Governors  were 
appointed  by  the  Crown. 

Nor  were  the  existing  diversities  diminished  by  personal 
intercourse  '.b^i^een  the  colonies,  or  by  the  press.  In  those 
times  there  were'  "but- 'few  travelling,  whether  for  the  purposes 
rof?  b<tjsiive$s'  or  'pleasure  ;;  and  the  press  had  but  a  limited  circu 
lation  for  rthe"few '  newspapers  which  it  sent  forth.  So  great 
were  these  diversities,  that  in  Rivington's  Gazette,  p.  32,  they 
are  thus  noticed  :  "  Nothing  has  surprised  people  more  than  the 
Virginians  and  Marylanders  joining  with  so  much  warmth 
with  the  New  England  Republicans  in  their  opposition  to  their 
ancient  Constitution,  which  has  been  the  glory  of  the  English  in 
every  part  of  the  world.  As  there  are  certainly  no  nations  un 
der  heaven  more  opposite  than  these  colonies,  it  would  be  very 
difficult  to  account  for  it  on  the  principle  of  religion  and  sound 
policy,  had  not  the  Virginians  discovered  their  indifference  to 
both,  so  highly  revered  by  their  illustrious  ancestors." 

BOND  OF  SYMPATHY  BETWEEN  THE  COLONIES. 

But  it  was  also  true  that  the  colonies,  generally,  were  of  com 
mon  blood,  and  spoke  a  common  language,  and  were  familiar 
with  the  same  traditions,  and,  in  relation  to  Great  Britain,  had 
common  rights  and  interests  at  stake,  and  common  habits  of 
reasoning  about  them.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  when 
the  crown  encroached  on  the  rights  of  Massachusetts,  that  all 
the  colonies  should  express  the  liveliest  interest  in  her  sufferings. 
Her  fate  might  soon  be  theirs.  It  is  not  surprising  that  Virginia 
should  take  the  lead  in  the  declaration,  that  the  interests  of  all 
the  colonies  were  concerned  in  what  was  done  by  the  British 


BOND    OF    SYMPATHY    BKTWKKN    THE    COLONIES.  9 

Government,  in  respect  to  Massachusetts.  The  Assembly  of 
Virginia  warned  the  king  of  the  danger  that  would  ensue,  "  if 
any  person  in  any  part  of  America  should  be  seized  and  carried 
beyond  sea  for  trial,"  May  16,  1769. 

Of  the  resolves  passed  by  Virginia  at  this  time,  Bancroft 
says  :  "  Is  it  asked  who  was  the  adviser  of  the  measure  ?  None 
can  tell.  Great  things  were  done,  tranquilly  and  modestly, 
without  a  thought  of  the  glory  that  was  their  due.  Had  the 
Ancient  Dominion  been  silent,  I  will  not  say  that  Massachu 
setts  might  have  faltered ;  but  mutual  confidence  would  have 
been  wanting.  American  freedom  was  more  prepared  by  cour 
ageous  counsel  for  successful  war."  Ills.  Am.  Rev.,  vol.  iii.,  p.  310. 

In  another  place  he  says :  "  The  Boston  committee  were 
already  (1774)  in  close  correspondence  with  the  other  New 
England  colonies,  with  New  York,  and  Pennsylvania.  Old 
jealousies  were  removed,  and  perfect  harmony  subsisted  between 
all.  "  UNION  "  was  the  cry,  a  union  which  should  reach  from 
Florida  to  the  icy  plains  of  Canada  ;  "  p.  541.  Under  a  common 
impulse,  in  view  of  common  interests  at  stake,  all  the  colonies, 
except  Georgia,  sent  delegates  to  the  first  CONTINENTAL  CON 
GRESS,  wThich  assembled  at  Philadelphia  on  the  5th  of  Septem 
ber,  1774.  It  is  not  surprising  that  PATRICK  HENRY  should,  in 
that  Congress,  scout  the  idea  of  sectional  distinctions  and  of  in 
dividual  interests.  "All  America,"  said  he,  "  is  thrown  into 
one  mass.  Where  are  your  landmarks,  your  boundaries  of  colo 
nies  ?  They  are  all  thrown  down.  The  distinction  between 
Virginians,  Pennsylvanians,  New  Yorkers,  and  New  Englanders 
are  no  more.  I  am  not  a  Virginian,  but  an  American"  Un 
der  a  common  impulse  all  the  States  sent  delegates  to  the  second 
Continental  Congress,  which  assembled  at  Philadelphia  on  the 
10th  of  May,  1775,  which  unanimously  appointed  George 
Washington  commander-in-chief  of  the  continental  forces  in  the 
united  colonies.  Under  a  common  impulse,  all  the  colonies,  on 
the  4th  of  July,  1776,  voted,  through  their  delegates,  "  that  the 
united  colonies  ought  to  be  Free  and  Independent  States." 
Under  the  same  common  impulse,  the  States,  eleven  of  them, 
adopted  the  articles  of  confederation  in  1778,  one  in  1779,  and 
the  remaining  one  in  1781,  by  which  the  union  of  the  States 
was  consummated. 


10  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

\ 

SECTIONAL  FEELING  YIELDING  TO  LOVE  OF  COUNTRY. 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  appointment  of  George 
Washington  to  the  supreme  command,  or  that  the  draft  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  by  another  Virginian,  or  that  the 
action  of  the  Continental  Congress  would  entirely  avoid  the 
manifestation  of  sectional  feelings.  Such  feelings  were,  indeed. 
called  forth,  but  they  were  expelled  from  the  heart  of  the  people 
of  the  colonies  by  the  new  and  stronger  affection,  namely,  love 
of  country.  The  sectional  feeling,  which  led  some  of  the  North 
ern  delegates,  in  the  Continental  Congress  in  1775,  to  prefer 
Artemas  Ward  or  some  New  England  man  to  be  commander-in- 
chief,  they  nobly  sacrificed  on  the  altar  of  patriotism,  and  gave 
their  voices  and  their  votes  for  a  Yirginian,  who  was  selected 
partly  on  sectional  grounds.  The  sectional  feelings  naturally 
aroused  by  the  first  draft  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
prepared  by  Mr.  Jefferson,  was  allayed  by  striking  from  it  the 
objectional  clauses.  These  are  his  words :  "  The  clause,  too, 
reprobating  the  enslaving  of  the  inhabitants  of  Africa,  was 
struck  out  in  complaisance  to  South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  who 
had  never  attempted  to  restrain  the  importation  of  slaves,  and 
who,  on  the  contrary,  wished  to  continue  it.  Our  Northern 
brethren,  also,  I  believe,  felt  a  little  tender  under  those  cen 
sures  ;  for,  though  their  people  had  very  few  slaves  themselves, 
yet  they  had  been  pretty  considerable  carriers  of  them  to 
others." — Jefferson's  Works. 

SECTIONAL    OPINIONS    IN    THE    CONTINENTAL    CONGRESS. 

In  the  Continental  Congress,  it  was  proposed,  July  12,  1776, 
"  that  the  expenses  of  the  Confederation  should  be  borne  by 
each  colony,  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  inhabitants  of  every 
age  and  quality,  except  Indians,  not  paying  taxes  in  each  col 
ony  ;  a  true  account  of  which,  distinguishing  the  white  inhab 
itants,  shall  be  triennially  taken  and  transmitted  to  the  Assem 
bly  of  the  United  States." 

Mr.  CHASE,  of  Maryland,  moved  "  that  the  quota  should  be 
paid,  not  by  the  number  of  inhabitants,  but  by  the  white  inhab 
itants." 


PROPOSED    SECTIONAL    CONVENTION.  11 

JOHN  ADAMS,  of  Massachusetts,  and  Mr.  WILSON,  of  Pennsyl 
vania,  spoke  in  opposition  to  this  amendment.  The  amendment 
was  rejected  by  the  votes  of  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts, 
Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsyl 
vania,  against  those  of  Maryland,  Virginia,  North  Carolina, 
South  Carolina,  Delaware  ;  Georgia  being  divided. 

March  28, 1783,  on  the  same  subject,  it  was  voted  that  slaves 
be  taxed  3  to  5.  New  Hampshire,  aye  /  Massachusetts,  no  / 
Rhode  Island,  no  /  New  Jersey,  aye  ;  Pennsylvania,  aye  •  Dela 
ware,  no /  Maryland,  aye  /  Virginia,  aye  /  North  Carolina, 
aye  •  South  Carolina,  no  /  Connecticut,  no  /  New  York,  aye. 

PROPOSED    SECTIONAL    CONVENTION. 

April  1,  1783.  Mr.  GORHAM,  of  Massachusetts,  in  the  Con 
gress  of  the  Confederation,  observed,  as  a  cogent  reason  for 
hastening  the  business,  "  that  the  Eastern  States,  at  the  invitation 
of  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts,  were,  with  New  York, 
about  to  form  a  convention  for  regulating  matters  of  common 
concern,  and  that,  if  any  plan  should  be  sent  out  by  Congress, 
they  would  probably  cooperate  with  Congress  in  giving  effi 
cacy  to  it." 

Mr.  MERCER,  of  Virginia,  expressed  great  disquietude  at  this 
information ;  considered  it  as  a  dangerous  precedent ;  and  "  that 
it  behooved  the  gentleman  to  explain  fully  the  object  of  the  Con 
vention,  as  it  would  be  necessary  for  the  Southern  States  to  be 
otherwise  very  circumspect  in  agreeing  to  any  plans  on  the 
supposition  that  the  general  Confederacy  was  to  continue." 

Mr.  OSGOOD,  of  Massachusetts,  and  Mr.  GORHAM,  explained 
"  that  the  object  of  the  proposed  Convention  was  to  guard  against 
an  interference  of  taxes  among  States  whose  local  situation  re 
quired  such  precautions." 

Mr.  BLAND,  of  Virginia,  said  "  he  always  considered  these  con 
ventions  as  improper,  and  contravening  the  spirit  of  the  general 
government.  He  said  they  had  the  appearance  of  YOUNG  CON 
GRESSES." 

Mr.  MADISON  and  Mr.  HAMILTON  disapproved  of  those  partial 
conventions,  not  as  absolute  violations  of  the  Confederacy,  but, 
as  ultimately  tending  to  them,  and  as,  in  the  mean  time,  excit- 


12  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

ing  pernicious  jealousies  ;  the  latter  observing,  "  he  "wished,  in 
stead  of  them,  to  see  a  GENERAL  CONVENTION  take  place." 

SECTIONAL    FEELING    IN    THE    ARMY    OF    THE    REVOLUTION. 

Nowhere  were  these  sectional  jealousies  more  prevalent  than 
in  the  motley  army  assembled,  from  distant  quarters,  under 
Washington's  own  command.  REED,  the  adjutant-general, 
speaking  on  this  subject,  observes :  "  The  Southern  troops,  com 
prising  the  regiments  south  of  the  Delaware,  looked  with  very 
unkind  feelings  on  those  of  New  England."  "  It  is  with  great 
concern,"  says  Washington,  in  one  of  his  general  orders,  "  that 
the  general  understands  that  jealousies  have  arisen  among  the 
troops  from  the  different  provinces,  and  reflections  are  thrown 
out  which  can  only  tend  to  irritate  each  other,  and  injure  the 
noble  cause  in  which  we  are  engaged,  and  which  we  ought  to 
support  with  one  hand  and  one  heart." 

In  a  letter  to  Gen.  Schuyler,  1776,  he  says  :  "  I  must  entreat 
your  attention  to  do  away  the  unhappy  and  pernicious  distinc 
tions  and  jealousies  between  troops  of  different  governments. 
Enjoin  this  upon  the  officers,  and  let  them  inculcate  and  press 
home  to  the  soldiery  the  necessity  of  order  and  harmony  among 
those  wrho  are  engaged  in  one  common  cause,  and  mutually 
contending  for  all  that  freemen  hold  most  dear." 

JOHN  ADAMS,  speaking  of  the  violent  passions  and  discordant 
interests  at  work  throughout  the  country,  from  Florida  to  Cana 
da,  observes  :  "  It  requires  more  serenity  of  temper,  a  deeper 
understanding,  and  more  courage,  than  fell  to  the  lot  of  Marl- 
borough,  to  ride  in  this  whirlwind."  IRVING'S -Z^/0  of  Washing 
ton,  vol.  ii.,  p.  287. 

REMARKS. 

It  is  then  manifest : 

1.  That  there  were  original  and  acquired  diversities  of  char 
acter  in  the  early  settlers  of  the  States,  which  were  the  founda 
tion  of  sectional  feelings  at  the  commencement  of  the  American 
Revolution. 

2.  That  these  feelings,  for  the  time,  were  overborne  by  the 


REMARKS.  13 

common  dangers  and  the  common  interests  in  respect  to  Great 
Britain,  wliicli  established  a  strong  bond  of  sympathy  between 
them. 

3.  That,  nevertheless,  sectional  interests  were  recognized  and 
sectional  feelings  manifested  in  the  Congress  of  the  Confedera 
tion,  and  in  the  army,  that  were  a  great  embarrassment  to  the 
Government  and  to  the  commander-in-chicf. 

4.  That,  notwithstanding   these   sectional  feelings  in    the 
minds  of  those  who  indulged  them,  and  in  the  hearts  of  the 
people  generally,  national  feelings  so  far  prevailed  through  the 
several  States,  that  they  contended  successfully  through  a  seven 
years'  war  with  the  mother  country,  and  won  the  independence 
which  they  had  declared,  and  took  their  place  by  common  con 
sent  among  the  civilized  nations  of  the  earth,  as  a  Confederacy, 
styled,  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE   CONSTITUTIONAL   CONTENTION. 

THE  common  fear  of  Great  Britain  had  caused  the  States  to 
adopt  the  "  Articles  of  Confederation."  When  that  fear  was 
removed  by  the  treaty  of  peace,  January,  17S3,  those  articles 
had  lost  their  power  as  a  bond  of  union.  The  common  fear  of 
imbecility  and  anarchy,  into  which  they  were  in  danger  of 
sinking  down,  after  the  excitements  of  the  war  had  passed  off, 
caused  them  to  adopt  the  Constitution. 

The  Convention  was  composed  of  gentlemen  of  high  moral 
principle,  of  undoubted  patriotism,  and  of  courteous  manners, 
of  broad  views,  some  of  them  accustomed  to  act  together  in  the 
Continental  Congress  or  in  the  army,  and  all  of  them  entertain 
ing  a  great  respect  for  Washington,  the  President.  The  Con 
vention  assembled  in  May,  1787. 

Still  sectional  difficulties  arose  in  that  body,  which,  with 
others  inherent  in  the  subjects  under  discussion,  threatened  its 
dissolution,  before  they  had  accomplished  the  object  for  which 
they  came  together.  These  subjects  were  :  1.  Navigation.  2. 
Slavery.  The  North  insisted  on  having  protection  for  their 
property  in  commerce  ;  the  South  insisted  on  having  protection 
for  their  property  in  slaves. 

NAVIGATION. 

The  Committee  of  Detail  had  reported  the  following  pro 
posal  :  "  No  navigation  act  shall  be  passed  (by  Congress)  with 
out  the  assent  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  present  in  each 
Ilouse."  This  clause  the  Southern  States  were  anxious  to 


THE    SLAVE   TRADE.  15 

retain,  lest  their  commerce  should  be  placed  too  much  in  the 
power  of  the  Eastern  States  ;  but  which  the  latter  were  anxious 
to  reject,  that  thus  a  bare  majority  of  Congress  might  pass 
navigation  laws  to  their  advantage,  even  though  injurious  to 
the  Southern  States. 

THE   SLAVE   TRADE. 

By  the  same  committee,  the  slave  trade  was  left  just  where 
the  old  Confederation  had  left  it,  without  giving  Congress  the 
power  to  abolish  it,  or  to  lay  any  duty  on  imported  slaves. 
This  proposal  was  acceptable  to  the  Southern  States,  but  not  to 
the  Northern ;  for  the  delegates  from  the  latter  thought  that 
slaves  imported  ought  to  be  placed  under  the  general  provision 
for  taxing  imports,  and  some  few  of  them  also  thought  that 
they  ought  to  favor  morals  by  the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade. 

Mr.  KING,  of  Massachusetts,  "  thought  the  subject  ought  to 
be  viewred  in  a  political  light  only.  If  two  States  (South  Caro 
lina  and  Georgia)  will  not  agree  to  the  Constitution  as  stated 
on  one  side,  he  could  affirm  with  equal  belief  on  the  other,  that 
great  and  equal  opposition  would  be  experienced  from  other 
States." .  He  remarked  that  "  the  exemption  of  slaves  from 
duty,  while  every  other  import  was  subject  to  it,  is  an  inequal 
ity  that  could  not  fail  to  strike  the  commercial  sagacity  of  the 
Northern  and  Middle  States." 

Gen.  COTESWORTH  PINCKNET,  of  South  Carolina,  in  his  re 
ply,  said  "  that  he  thought  himself  bound  to  declare  candidly, 
that  he  did  not  think  that  South  Carolina  would  stop  the  im 
portation  of  slaves  in  any  short  time,  but  only  stop  it  occasion 
ally,  as  she  now  does.  He  moved  to  commit  the  clause,  that 
slaves  might  be  made  liable  to  an  equal  duty  with  other  im 
ports,  which  he  thought  right,  and  which  would  remove  one 
difficulty  which  had  been  stated." 

Tuesday,  August  21  and  22, 1787. — Mr.  ELLSWORTH,  of  Con 
necticut,  was  for  leaving  the  clause  (which  did  not  prohibit  the 
importation  of  slaves)  as  it  now  stands.  "  Let  every  State  import 
what  it  pleases.  The  wisdom  or  morality  of  slavery  are  con 
siderations  that  belong  to  the  States  themselves.  What  enriches 
a  part  enriches  the  whole ;  and  the  States  are  the  best  judges 


16  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

of  their  particular  interests.  The  old  Confederation  had  not 
meddled  with  this  point,  and  he  did  not  see  any  greater  neces 
sity  for  bringing  it  within  the  policy  of  the  new  one." 

Mr.  SHERMAN,  of  Connecticut,  "  was  for  leaving  the  clause  as 
it  now  stands.  lie  disapproved  of  the  slave  trade  ;  yet,  as  the 
States  were  now  possessed  of  the  right  to  import  slaves,  and  as 
the  public  good  did  not  require  it  to  be  taken  from  them,  and 
as  it  was  expedient  to  have  as  few  objections  as  possible  to  the 
proposed  scheme  of  government,  he  thought  it  best  to  leave  the 
matter  as  we  find  it ;  that  is,  not  prohibit  the  importation  of 
slaves." 

Mr.  GorvERNEUR  MORRIS,  of  Pennsylvania,  wished  to  have 
the  whole  subject  to  be  committed,  including  the  clause  relating 
to  navigation  acts.  "  These  things,  namely,  the  slave  trade,  to 
which  some  of  the  North,  was  opposed,  and  the  navigation  act 
without  a  restriction,  to  which  the  South  was  opposed,  may 
form  a  bargain  between  the  Northern  and  the  Southern  States." 

COMMITTEE   OF   ONE   FROM   EACH   STATE. 

The  Committee  of  Eleven,  to  whom  was  referred  the  subject 
of  the  "  bargain,"  reported,  August  24,  1787,  "  in  favor  of  not 
allowing  the  Legislature  to  prohibit  the  importation  of  slaves 
before  1800,  but  giving  them  power  to  impose  a  duty  at  a  rate 
not  exceeding  the  average  of  other  imports" 

DEBATE   IN   THE    CONVENTION. 

General  PINCKNEY,  August  25,  moved  to  strike  out  the  year 
1800,  and  insert  1808. 

Mr.  GORIIAM,  of  Massachusetts,  seconded  the  motion. 

It  was  then  passed  in  the  affirmative ;  New  Hampshire, 
Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Maryland,  North  Carolina,  and 
South  Carolina,  voting  in  the  affirmative  (6) ;  New  Jersey, 
Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  and  Virginia,  in  the  negative  (4). 

It  was  finally  agreed,  nem.  con.,  to  make  the  clause  read,  "  but 
a  tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed  on  such  importation,  not  ex 
ceeding  ten  dollars  for  each  person."  Ten  dollars  was  considered 
by  some  of  the  members  a  "fair  average  of  other  imports" 


DEBATE   IN   THE   CONVENTION.  17 

comparing  the  price  of  a  slave,  at  that  time,  with  the  price  of 
"  other  articles"  of  importation,  or  five  per  cent,  ad  valorem, 
the  money  value  of  a  slave.  This  sum,  as  a  specific  duty,  there 
fore,  was  inserted  instead  of  "  a  fair  average  of  other  imports," 
the  phrase  used  in  the  report  of  the  committee.  Thus  the  price 
of  a  slave  was  reckoned  at  two  hundred  dollars  by  the  Con 
vention. 

Mr.  CIIAHLES  PIXCKNEY,  of  South  Carolina,  August  29, 
moved  in  Convention  to  postpone  the  report  of  the  Committee 
of  Eleven  in  favor  of  the  following  proposal :  "  That  no  act  of 
the  Legislature  for  the  purpose  of  regulating  the  commerce  of 
the  United  States  with  foreign  powers,  among  the  United 
States,  (the  several  States,)  shall  be  passed  without  the  assent 
of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  each  House."  Mr.  MARTIN 
seconded  the  motion.  Mr.  PINCKNEY  remarked,  that  there  were 
five  different  commercial  interests :.  1.  The  fisheries  and  West 
India  trade,  which  belonged  to>  the  New  England  States.  2., 
The  interests  of  New  York  lay  in  free  trade.  3.  "Wheat  and 
flour  are  the  staples  of  the  two  Middle  States,  New  Jersey  and 
Pennsylvania.  4.  Tobacco,  the  staple  of  Virginia  and  Mary 
land,  and  a  part  of  North  Carolina.  5.  Rice  and  indigo,  the 
staples  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia.  These  different  inter 
ests  would  be  the  source  of  oppressive  regulations,  if  no  check 
to  a  bare  majority  should  be  provided.  States  pursue  their 
interests  with  less  scruple  than  individuals.  The  power  of  regu 
lating  commerce  wTas  a  pure  concession  on  the  part  of  the 
Southern  States.  They  did  not  need  the  protection  of  the 
maritime  States  for  the  present." 

General  C.  C.  PINCKNEY,  of  South  Carolina,  said  "  that  it  was 
the  true  interest  of  the  Southern  States  to  pass  no  regulation  of 
commerce ;  but,  considering  the  loss  brought  on  the  commerce 
of  the  Eastern  States  by  the  Revolution,  their  liberal  conduct 
towards  the  views  of  South  Carolina,  (permission  to  import, 
slaves,)  and  the  interests  the  weak  Southern  States  had  in  being 
united  to  the  strong  Eastern  .States,  he  thought  it  proper  that 
no  fetters  should  be  imposed  on  the  power  of  making  commer 
cial  regulations,  and  that  his  constituents,  though  prejudiced 
against  the  Eastern  States,  would  be  reconciled  by  this  liberality, 
(as  to  the  slave  trade.)  He  had  himself,  he  said,  prejudices, 


18  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

against  the  Eastern  States  before  lie  came  here,  but  would  ac 
knowledge  that  he  had  found  them  as  liberal  and  candid  as  any 
men  whatever." 

Mr.  CLYMER,  of  Pennsylvania  :  "  The  diversity  of  commercial 
interests  of  necessity  creates  difficulties  which  ought  not  to  be 
increased  by  unnecessary  regulations.  The  Northern  and  Mid 
dle  States  will  tie  ruined,  if  not  allowed  to  defend  themselves 
against  foreign  regulations." 

Mr.  SHERMAN,  of  Connecticut,  and  Mr.  MORRIS,  of  Pennsyl 
vania,  in  behalf  of  the  Eastern  States,  spoke  against  Mr. 
CHARLES  PINCKNEY'S  motion. 

Mr.  BUTLER,  of  South  Carolina,  "  differed  from  those  who 
considered  the  rejection  of  the  motion  as  no  concession  on  the 
part  of  the  Southern  States.  He  considered  the  interests  of 
these  and  the  Eastern  States  as  different  as  the  interests  of  Rus 
sia  and  Turkey.  Being,  notwithstanding,  desirous  of  concilia 
ting  the  affections  of  the  Eastern  States,  he  should  vote  against 
requiring  two-thirds  instead  of  a  majority." 

Colonel  GEORGE  MASON,  of  Virginia  :  "  If  the  Government  is 
to  be  lasting,  it  must  be  founded  in  the  confidence  and  affection 
of  the  people,  and  must  be  so  construed  as  to  obtain  these. 
The  majority  will  be  governed  by  their  interests.  The  Southern 
States  are  in  the  minority  in  both  Houses.  Is  it  to  be  expected 
that  they  will  deliver  themselves,  bound  hand  and  foot,  to  the 
Eastern  .States,  and  enable  these  to  exclaim,  in  the  words  of 
Cromwell  on  a  certain  occasion,  ;  The  Lord  hath  delivered  them 
into  our  hands  '  ?  " 

Mr.  PINCKNEY'S  motion  having  failed  to  pass,  the  report  of 
the  committee,  striking  out  the  clause  requiring  a  two-thirds 
vote  to  pass  a  navigation  act,  was  then  agreed  to  nem.  con. 

THE    SPIRIT  OF  THE   COMMITTEE  OF   ELEVEN. 

The  spirit  of  the  committee  that  reported  the  terms  of  the 
foregoing  "  bargain,"  may  be  understood  from  the  following 
statement  of  LUTHER  MARTIN,  one  of  their  number  :  "  They  met 
and  took  under  their  consideration  the  subjects  committed  to 
them.  I  found  the  Eastern  States,  notwithstanding  their  aver 
sion  to  slavery*  were  very  willing  to  indulge  the  Southern  States 


VIRGINIA   NOT   A   PARTY    TO   THE    BARGAIN.  19 

with  at  least  a  temporary  liberty  to  prosecute  the  slave  trade, 
provided  the  Southern  States  would,  in  their  turn,  gratify  them 
by  laying  no  restriction  on  navigation  acts  ;  and,  after  a  very 
little  time,  the  committee,  by  a  large  majority,  agreed  on  a 
report." 

GAIN  AND   LOSS    TO   EACH   SECTION   BY  THE  BARGAIN. 

In  this  "bargain,  the  Northern  States  gained  :  first,  the  right 
to  pass  navigation  acts  by  a  bare  majority  ;  to  tax  the  tonnage 
of  foreign  nations  for  their  own  advantage  as  carriers  ;  to  lay  a 
duty  on  foreign  imports  for  their  own  advantage  as  manufac 
turers  ;  secondly,  to  put  an  end  to  the  slave  trade  in  twenty 
years,  and  thereby  to  prevent,  in  some  degree,  the  increase  of 
slave  representation,  for  their  own  political  advantage.  What 
did  they  lose  ?  Nothing,  except  their  share  of  the  profits  in  im 
porting  slaves,  after  enjoying  it  for  that  period. 

What  did  the  Southern  States  gain  by  this  bargain  ?  They 
gained  only  the  additional  recognition  of  property  in  slaves  by 
the  Constitution ;  wrhile  they  lost  much  of  what  the  Northern 
States  gained.  They  did  not  gain  the  right  to  import  slaves  for 
twenty  years  which  they  enjoyed  before ;  while  they  lost  the 
right  to  import  them  afterwards.  They  found  themselves 
u  bound  hand  and  foot "  by  the  tariff  laws  of  1828,  and  other 
tariffs. 

VIRGINIA  NOT    A   PARTY    TO   THE    BARGAIN. 

One  reason  why  Virginia  did  not  unite  with  the  Southern 
and  Eastern  States  in  making  that  bargain  probably  was,  that  she 
neither  derived  the  profits  received  by  the  one  class,  from  trans 
porting  slaves  to  the  country,  nor  the  profits  received  from  pur 
chasing  and  working  them  after  their  importation,  enjoyed  by 
the  other  class.  She  already  had  slaves  enough  of  her  own,  so 
that  she  had  no  occasion  to  purchase,  and  she  had  comparatively 
few  ships  for  transporting  them  to  others.  She  could  raise  slaves 
cheaper  than  she  could  import  them,  and  if  she  had  any  slaves 
for  sale,  the  price  of  them  would  be  lessened  by  the  importation 
of  negroes. 

Besides  this,  Virginia  had  a  long  standing  quarrel  with  the 


20  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

British  king  on  account  of  his  vetoing  a  bill  for  the  suppression 
of  the  slave  trade,  drawn  up  by  the  youthful  Jefferson,  and  in 
troduced  by  him  into  the  State  Legislature,  and  then  passed. 
The  indignation  caused  by  that  regal  act  continued  to  burn 
in  the  heart  of  the  mover,  and  in  many  a  generous  bosom 
throughout  Virginia  for  a  long  time  afterwards,  and  may  have 
contributed  to  prevent  her  from  voting  to  permit  the  continuance 
of  the  slave  trade  until  1808. 

The  course  of  Virginia  in  the  Convention  was  somewhat 
equivocal,  acting  sometimes  with  the  slave  States,  and  sometimes 
with  the  non-slaveholding  States.  As  she  had  taken  the  lead  in 
forming  a  Constitution,  she  must  have  been  anxious  to  carry  it 
out  to  a  successful  issue.  She  felt  the  dignity  of  her  position  as 
the  Ancient  Dominion,  as  the  mother  of  statesmen,  and  as  hav 
ing  her  favorite  son  acting  as  President  of  the  Convention.  Mr. 
Madison,  especially,  was  anxious  to  prevent  a  failure,  and  was 
disposed  to  conciliate  both  sections.  He  and  others,  probably, 
desired  to  believe  that  the  abolition  of  slavery  would  take  place 
in  all  the  States,  and  he  was  willing  to  encourage  the  hope  of  it 
in  others.  But  after  the  completion  of  the  "  bargain  "  by  which 
the  slave  trade  was  to  be  continued  twenty  years,  he  must  have 
given  up  that  belief.  Indeed,  he  declared  that,  by  that  continu 
ance,  all  the  evils  of  allowing  the  permanent  continuance  of  the 
slave  trade  would  be  accomplished.  The  Pinckneys  and  others, 
who  were  better  circumstanced  to  judge  correctly,  never  en 
couraged  that  belief,  but  the  contrary.  They  made  arrange 
ments  in  the  Constitution  for  the  permanence  of  slavery  in  the 
United  States,  and  for  its  increase  :  just  what  has  happened. 

SLAVES  RECOGNIZED  AS   PROPERTY    BY  THE  CONSTITUTION. 

But  while  the  "  bargain  "  was  in  the  course  of  negotiation, 
it  was  particularly  objected  to  by  ROGER  SHERMAN,  on  the  ground 
that,  by  laying  a  duty  on  slaves  as  on  other  imports,  it  recognizes 
them  as  "property" 

There  were  men  in  the  Convention  wrho  had  no  objections  to 
slaves  being  property,  and  to  owning  them  as  property,  who 
thought  that  it  was  not  judicious  to  name  them  as  such,  or  to 
recognize  them  as  such  in  the  Constitution.  That  instrument 


T1IE   WORD   SLAVE   NOT   USED   IN   THE    CONSTITUTION.  21 

must  go  before  the  people  of  the  several  States,  and  was  likely 
to  encounter  great  opposition.  They  thought,  therefore,  that  it 
was  desirable  that  as  few  features  as  possible  should  belong  to 
it,  with  which  even  the  most  scrupulous  and  fastidious  could 
find  fault. 

But  it  became  necessary  to  recognize  them  as  property  in 
the  Constitution  ;  just  as  they  were  often  spoken  of  as  property 
in  the  debates,  and  classed  as  property  by  Northern  and  South 
ern  delegates.  Thus,  Mr.  WILSON,  of  Pennsylvania,  in  the  de 
bate  on  this  very  subject,  remarked :  "  As  the  section  now 
stands,  all  articles  (imported)  are  to  be  taxed,  slaves  only  ex 
empt  ; "  he  thought  it  "  unreasonable  that  slaves  alone  should 
be  exempt,  when  all  other  articles  are  taxed  or  dutied.  They 
were,  therefore,  classed  in  the  same  category  with  other  articles 
of  property. 

THE    WORD   SLAVE  NOT  USED   IN   THE   CONSTITUTION. 

In  regard  to  using  the  word  "  persons  "  in  this  section,  and 
elsewhere,  when  slaves  were  meant  and  spoken  of,  LUTHER  MAR- 
TON  has  the  following  remark  in  his  letter  to  the  Legislature  of 
Maryland  :  "  The  design  of  this  clause  is  to  prevent  the  general 
Government  from  prohibiting  the  importation  of  slaves  ;  but  the 
same  general  reason  which  caused  them  to  strike  out  the  word 
"  national,"  and  not  admit  the  word  "  stamp,"  influenced  them 
to  guard  against  the  introduction  of  the  word  slaves.  They  anx 
iously  sought  to  avoid  any  expression  which  might  be  odious  in 
the  ears  of  Americans  ;  although  they  were  willing  to  admit  into 
their  system  the  things  which  the  expression  signified."  It  fully 
recognized  slaves  to  be  property,  though  it  does  not  contain  the 
word.  Mr.  Sherman  liked  "  a  description  "  better  than  the 
term,  which  was  not  pleasing  to  some  people.  Mr.  Madison 
was  unwilling  to  use  the  term  slaves  in  the  Constitution,  or  even 
to  suggest  the  idea  that  they  were  property ;  though  he  spoke 
of  them  as  property  in  debate  and  elsewhere,  and  owned  them 
as  property.  He  would  have  the  idea,  but  would  not  suggest 
the  idea.  The  word  slaves,  would  be  disagreeable  to  men  like 
the  Quakers ;  the  word  "  national,"  would  be  offensive  to  the 
staunch  supporters  of  State  rights ;  and  the  word  "  stamp,"  would 


22  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

be  disagreeable,  because  it  called  up  the  remembrance  of  the 
"  stamp  act."  The  phraseology  used  in  describing  the  slave 
trade  was  employed  for  the  same  purpose.  Mr.  Madison,  in  his 
letter  to  Robert  "Walsh,  "Nov.  1819,  declares,  in  respect  to  the 
phrase  the  "  migration  and  importation  of  such  persons,"  that  it 
means  the  importation  of  slaves.  The  word  "  migration  "  was 
added  as  an  expletive,  that  would  weaken  the  impression  pro 
duced  by  the  word  importation  when  used  alone.  The  one  word 
would  modify  or  explain  the  other. 

GOUVERNEUR  MORRIS,  of  Pennsylvania,  one  of  the  leading 
Northern  men  in  the  Convention,  was  anxious  that  the  protec 
tion  of  slavery  should  not  be  rasAo,  prominent  in  the  Constitution. 
His  constituents  were  eome  of  them  Quakers,  some  of  them- 
members  of  abolition  societies,  who  might  oppose  the  adoption 
of  the  Constitution,  if  they  saw,  distinctly,  the  whole  amount  of 
protection  afforded  to  slave  property,  as  they  would,  if  slaves 
were  distinctly  named.  And  yet  he  declared  that,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  domestic  slavery  was  the  most  prominent  feature  in  the 
aristocratic  countenance  of  the  proposed  Constitution"  His 
perceptive  mind  saw  clearly  the  exact  meaning  of  the  descrip 
tive  terms  employed  instead  of  the  terms  themselves.  "  A  per 
son  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State  under  the  laws  thereof," 
was  a  description  conveying  as  clear  a  meaning  to  his  rnind,  as 
if  the  word  slave  had  been  used  instead  of  the  "  description." 
A  description  of  the  meaning  of  a  word  in  a  dictionary  is  a  de 
finition  of  the  word,  and  shows  its  meaning.  These  statesmen 
did  the  same  that  theologians  sometimes  do.  Instead  of  using 
odious  words,  they  used  equivalent  terms. 


FUGITIVE    SLAVES. 


General  C.  C.  PINCKNEY,  of  South  Carolina,  at  an  early  stage 
of  the  proceedings,  declared  that,  unless  provision  should  be 
made  to  secure  the  Southern  States  in  the  possession  of  their 
property  in  slaves,  by  preventing  their  emancipation  by  escap 
ing  into  other  States,  the  Constitution  would  not  be  accepted  by 
the  State  which  he  represented.  After  the  committee  of  detail 
had  made  their  report,  without  making  this  provision,  he  re 
newed  his  demand  for  a  provision  "  in  favor  of  property  in 


REPRESENTATION   AND    TAXATION.  23 

slaves  ;  "  and  in  the  course  of  the  debate  he  and  Mr.  C.  PINCK- 
NEY  moved  to  require  fugitive  slaves  to  be  delivered  up  like 
criminals." 

Mr.  WILSON,  of  Pennsylvania,  said :  "  This  would  require 
the  executive  of  a  State  to  do  it  at  public  expense." 

Mr.  SHERMAN,  of  Connecticut :  "  I  see  no  more  propriety,  in 
the  public  seizing  and  surrendering  a  slave,  or  servant,  than  a 
horse."  It  appears  that  both  of  these  gentlemen  voted  for  this 
provision,  notwithstanding  these  objections. 

Mr.  BUTLER,  of  South  Carolina,  moved  to  insert,  after  article 
15,  "  if  any  person,  bound  to  service  or  labor  in  any  of  the 
United  States,  shall  escape  into  another  State,  he  or  she  shall 
not  be  discharged  from  such  service  or  labor  in  consequence  of 
any  regulation  subsisting  in  the  State  to  which  they  may  escape, 
but  shall  be  delivered  up  to  the  person  justly  claiming  their  ser 
vice  or  labor."  This  was  agreed  to  in  Convention  ncm.  con. 

<3 

In  the  first  revision  of  this  clause,  there  were  some  changes 
in  style  not  affecting  the  meaning  of  the  terms.  Thus,  instead 
of  "justly  "  the  word  "  due  "  was  substituted  ;  and  instead  of 
"  any  of  the  United  States,"  "  any  State"  was  substituted. 

Thus  the  Convention,  without  a  dissenting  voice,  secured  to 
slaveholders  their  right  of  property  in  slaves,  according  to  the 
demand  of  Gen.  Pinckney,  in  every  part  of  the  country,  and 
in  every  State  where  the  slave  could  be  found.  The  States  were 
expected  to  aid  in  the  rendition  of  slaves. 

REPRESENTATION    AND   TAXATION. 

In  respect  to  the  subject  of  taxation,  it  seemed  to  be  the 
wish  of  delegates  from  the  Southern  States  that  slaves  should  be 
reckoned  as  property,  and  not  as  persons  ;  while,  with  respect  to 
representation,  it  was  their  wish,  at  least  a  portion  of  them,  that 
the  slaves  should  be  reckoned  as  persons,  and  the  full  number 
of  slaves  should  be  counted  as  so  many  white  men. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  delegates  from  the  Northern  States 
seemed  disposed  to  consider  the  slaves  as  persons  with  respect 
to  the  subject  of  taxation,  but  to  consider  them  as  property  in 
respect  to  the  subject  of  representation. 

It  having  just  beeu  established  in  the  Convention,  by  the 


2  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

votes  of  the  States,  that  there  should  be  a  common  measure 
for  representation  and  taxation,  it  was  afterwards  decided,  that, 
as  slaves  were  viewed  both  as  property  and  as  persons,  they 
should  be  taken  into  both  representation  and  taxation  in  the  pro 
portion  of  three  to  five,  that  is,  that  five  slaves  should  count  as 
much  as  three  whites.  Thus  slaves  are  recognized  as  "  persons  "  in 
the  words  of  the  Constitution,  but  as  persons  under  the  disability 
of  being  regarded  as  property  by  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which 
they  reside.  Had  they  been  reckoned  in  their  whole  number,  it 
would  have  been  because  they  were  regarded,  in  this  matter, 
only  as  persons  ;  had  they  been  excluded  from  the  reckoning,  it 
would  be  because  they  were,  in  this  matter,  reckoned  only  as  prop 
erty,  just  as  they  were  originally  by  the  Continental  Congress. 

The  constitutional  Convention  was  dissolved  September  14, 
1787. 

REMARKS. 

1.  AVhen  the  Constitution  came  from  the  Convention  before 
the  several  States  for  adoption,  so  strong  was  the  opposition  to 
it  in  some  of  them,  that  it  became  evident  that  it  could  not  be 
ratified  by  all  of  them,  unless  it  should  be  amended  either  be 
fore  or  after  its  adoption.  It  was  finally  concluded  to  adopt  it 
on  assurances  that  it  would  be  amended  afterwards.  One  of 
the  proposed  amendments  respected  State  rights,  which  have 
since  been  the  subject  of  sectional  discussion. 

One  of  the  articles  of  the  old  Confederation  was  this  :  "  Each 
State  retains  its  sovereignty,  freedom,  and  independence,  and 
every  power,  jurisdiction,  and  right,  which  is  not  by  this  Con 
federation  expressly  delegated  to  the  United  States  in  Congress 
assembled."  This  was  omitted  in  the  new  Constitution,  not 
from  any  objection  to  it,  so  far  as  is  known  to  the  present 
writer.  Delegated  powers  are,  of  course,  limited  to  the 
subjects  delegated. 

Accordingly,  after  its  adoption,  the  following  article,  among 
others,  was  added  to  it,  as  an  equivalent  to  the  above  article 
of  the  old  Confederation :  "  The  powers  not  delegated  to  the 
United  States,  are  reserved  to  all  the  States  respectively,  or  the 
people,"  (that  is,  to  the  people  of  the  States  respectively.) 

At  the  time  the  Constitution  was  adopted,  the  citizens  of 


KEMAKKS.  25 

the  different  States  were  familiar  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Dec 
laration  of  Independence,  that  Governments  derive  their  just 
"powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed,"  and  that  "  it  is  the 
right  of  the  people  to  alter  and  abolish  their  Government,  and 
to  form  a  new  one,  laying  its  foundation  011  such  principles, 
and  organizing  its  powers  in  such  a  form,  as  to  them  shall  seem 
most  likely  to  effect  their  safety  and  happiness." 

The  "  right  of  the  people"  here  spoken  of  generally,  is  ap 
plied,  in  that  instrument,  to  the  right  of  the  people  of  the  colo 
nies  respectively,  who  were  about  to  "  alter  their  former  sys 
tems  of  government."  The  very  clause  containing  the  Declara 
tion  recognizes  the  same  fact :  "  We,  therefore,  the  representa 
tives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled, 
appealing  to  the  Supreme  Judge  of  the  world  for  the  rectitude 
of  our  intentions,  do,  in  the  name  and  by  the  authority  of  the 
good  people  of  these  colonies,  solemnly  declare  that  these 
United  Colonies  are,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  free  and  inde 
pendent  States."  Each  colony  thus  became  an  independent 
State.  Thus  each  colony,  acting  for  itself,  but  in  concert  with 
others,  "  altered  its  former  system  of  government." 

And  in  the  very  act  of  changing  the  Government  from  that 
of  the  old  Confederation,  which  was  established  by  "  articles 
of  perpetual  union,"  the  several  States  recognized  the  right  of 
"  the  people  of  the  several  States"  to  change  the  form  of  their 
government ;  inasmuch  as  by  their  delegates,  and  then  by  their 
people,  they  changed  the  government,  making  it  binding  if 
nine  States  consent  to  the  union,  leaving  out  the  remaining 
four.  If  the  people  of  the  several  nine  States  had  the  right  to 
change  the  government,  notwithstanding  they  had  adopted  the 
"  articles  of  perpetual  union,"  then  the  four  residuary  States, 
namely,  Virginia,  New  York,  Rhode  Island,  and  North  Caro 
lina,  would  be  left  in  an  awkward  position,  and  might  have 
some  reason  to  complain ;  but  they  could  not  deny  the  right. 
And  it  is  not  known  to  the  present  writer  that  they  did  deny 
the  right.  The  two  former  soon  acceded  to  the  Union,  but 
Rhode  Island  delayed  until  May,  1790,  nearly  three  years,  and 
North  Carolina  until  November,  more  than  three  years.  It 
should  be  added  that  these  two  States  were  not  brought  into 
the  Union  by  coercion  of  any  kind,  but  by  conciliation. 


26  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTEOVEESY. 

2.  After  encountering  a  powerful  opposition  in  the  Conven 
tion  in  Virginia,  the  Constitution  was  ratified  with  the  implied 
recognition  of  the  right  of  the  people  of  that  State  to  resume 
the  powers  granted  under  it.  "  "We,  the  delegates  of  the  people 
of  Virginia,  do,  in  the  name  and  behalf  of  the  people  of  Vir 
ginia,  declare  and  make  known,  that  powers  granted  under  the 
Constitution,  being  derived  from  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  may  ~be  resumed  l>y  them  whensoever  the  same  shall  be 
perverted  to  their  injury  or  oppression,  and  that  every  power 
not  granted  thereby  remains  with  them  and  at  their  will,"  &c. 

In  like  manner  the  Convention  of  the  State  of  New  York 
assert  the  right  of  the  people  of  New  York  to  resume  the 
powers  granted  under  the  Constitution.  They  "  declare  and 
make  known,  that  the  powers  of  government  may  be  resumed 
by  the  people,  whensoever  it  shall  become  necessary  to  their 
happiness  ;  that  every  power,  jurisdiction,  and  right,  which  is 
not  by  said  Constitution  clearly  delegated  to  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States,  or  the  Departments  of  the  Government 
thereof,  remains  to  the  people  of  the  several  States,  or  to  their 
respective  State  Governments  to  w^hom  they  have  granted  the 
same,"  &c.  The  State  of  New  York,  or  the  people  of  the  State, 
as  a  party  to  the  compact,  must  judge  when  it  shall  be  neces 
sary  to  resume  the  powers  granted.  Without  this  recognition 
of  the  right  of  a  State  to  resume  the  powers  granted,  there  is  no 
reason  to  believe  that  the  Constitution  would  have  been  ratified 
•  by  New  York  ;  as  there  was  a  very  powerful  opposition  to  the 
measure.  This  recognition  seems  to  have  been  substituted  for 
another  proposition,  namely,  to  expressly  reserve  the  right  to 
recede  after  five  or  six  years.  The  Constitution,  with  this  and 
other  explanations,  was  ratified  by  a  majority  of  only  three. 

Rhode  Island,  also,  expressly  reserved  the  right  to  resume 
the  powers  granted.  Thus  three  States,  at  least,  not  satisfied 
with  the  right  which,  all  the  colonies  were  acknowledged  to 
have,  to  alter  their  form  of  government,  made  a  distinct  dec 
laration  of  that  right,  when  they  ratified  the  Constitution.  In 
those  times,  when  the  word  "  people"  was  used  in  reference  to 
the  civil  Government,  it  was  understood  to  mean  the  people 
who  acted  by  a  Legislature,  and  Judges,  and  Governors  of  their 
own— the  people  of  a  State.  In  this  sense  it  is  used  in  the  arti- 


REMAKEB.  27 

clcs  of  Confederation,  and  in  the  Constitution,  though  in  the 
latter  it  is  also  used  for  smaller  bodies  ;  but  in  no  instance  is  it 
used  for  all  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  taken  collectively. 
Who  were  the  people  that  ordained  and  established  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States  ?  Evidently,  the  people  of  the  sev 
eral  States,  each  State  acting  separately  and  for  itself.  The 
people  of  Massachusetts  could  not  act  for  Virginia,  but  only  for 
Massachusetts.  The  people  of  Virginia,  when  they  claimed  the 
right  to  resume  the  powers  delegated,  claimed  that  right  for 
each  of  the  States. 

3.  In   the   Convention   which   assembled  in   Philadelphia, 
May,  IT8T,  the  greatest  difficulty  arose  from  diversity  of  views 
in  respect  to  State  rights,  though  it  did  not,  as  afterwards,  as 
sume  a  sectional  form.     This  will  be  noticed  hereafter. 

4.  In  respect  to  the  "  bargain"  concerning  navigation  and 
the  slave  trade,  it  appears  from  the  speech  of  General  PINCKNEY, 
that  the  delegates  of  the  Southern  States  were  influenced  by 
generous  and  patriotic  considerations. 

5.  The  Northern  States  declared  in  the  Convention  that  they 
had  but  one  motive  to  form  a  Constitution,  and  that  was  "  com 
merce."  *  By  the  bargain  they  gained  what  they  wanted.     In  ac 
cordance  with  this,  FISHER  AMES,  in  the  Massachusetts  Convention, 
assembled  to  ratify  the  Constitution,  said  :   "  But  we  shall  put 
every  thing  to  hazard  by  rejecting  the  Constitution.     "We  have 
great  advantages  with  respect  of  navigation  ;  and  it  is  the  gen 
eral  interest  of  the  States  that  we  should  have  them.     But  if 
we  reject  it,  what  security  have  we  that  we  shall  obtain  them  a 
second  time  against  the  local  interests   and  prejudices  of  the 
other  States  ?  " 

6.  The  Northern  States  have  since  gained  more  than  all  the 
advantages  which  they  expected  by  the  encouragement  provided 
for  their  commerce  and  manufactures ;    especially  since  high 
tariifs  have  been  established  by  Congress. 

7.  The  Southern  States  lost  whatever  of  advantages  there 
wras  in  the  slave  trade,  after  twenty  years  ;  but  they  gained  the 
acknowledgment  that  slaves  under  the  Constitution  are  prop 
erty,  being  taxable  or  dutiable  like  other  articles  of  property  ; 
that  they  shall  be  "  delivered  up"  as  property,  by  the  non- 
slaveholding  States ;  and  that,  in  case  of  the  insurrection   of 


T,  "_LL-T^  sin  _   iii  T£"r»TdiiTrd*L  m. 
iri^  ^pr-itffr  aifiitfS3Iir^"«  ijini:  ~i&  TI  r  nr 


J^ITT^  xt  TFTCtsmr  J 


-iigrrr  :n   -rrr«»f-  "Sms?  TT 
tfr^i      ~~-  mni 


r  £Sii:isflsai  zi 


in  ~i  !•?•  ^  -f*r 

I:  i    I.""  -'HL 

3n  j 


3L  Ik 

-    "  -JT"--  -  "     :  -.«  _^-ii 


;.     :._    T^^.J   '  __  ir   "__  -  ~>  ~  -.:"     ~  -j?  '  '  *- 
J.  fin  "fiif-  C''TT>Ti::::'.n:'.'t(STT^  T 

__  .     L;    "1-    '1* 


-.     "       "  -  *    t     •"-__'  -   -              _.:    *        >."_-._!.        "  •       "    1  _    "  --  ~'  _  -  "            -  -  "~  • 

~    .   -r   L    .  l^-r^'/ 

^unziisn-  ssoiffe.         - 

.  :.".  "  ~  •-  -    "i-    -  "_  d_'        -_•-  "     .     "  "    '  ".  "      :  -  .  •  ".  "  .  :  ..  "  a 

:yy~HfP  i  m^SHiHL  itHTV'^flL  "ULti:  TV7!1  "7' 

^T;  amar-  t  mmL 

3BT  Tmft*   -iiiST  liilTlA    ^^SJS!:^.  Lill    "V-'illlL.  iGESJr    t-Hj^  irj  liTTTi  TT?  ;    nn,   "p 


..I.-    Mir    '.'• 

' 


"  -     ..    "     ;..  \     :  ......   -  -;  -     j  -  ^    -         |     ^  -  ••_ 


lit:     ."•_-/'..      -"-•'-.     11    ".'-.":.     "  •'_".,'. 

•_Tl_«Iir'l     .'"      ii^    at    Tfim'ivni'L..      IZltTlJir  . 

T'tan'iJi^ui  T':>SnSHiini  <iif  '  s 
fur  tSjg;  jaffii  i«rrr  pi^s  a 

far 


: 


Tl 


jcn 


i    T*Z»ZT.*^i-     ZLiETTcSr  im"1".   ITT>;     .gLT'-jg.   ^u    y;;  _.  !^r*|.'j,  ^'r^=^^.  -^ 

ir^a^  fi  ii  d j  -iriVtfr  vxj. 


CHAPTER   III. 


THE  Constitution  just  adopted  embodied  the  principles  of 
our  Government ;  the  laws  to  be  passed  under  it  would  furnish 
the  rules  for  its  administration.  It  was  fortunate  for  the  coun 
try  that  the  friends  of  the  Federal  Constitution  had  a  paramount 
influence  in  the  practical  application  of  its  principles  in  the 
legislative,  judicial,  and  executive  departments.  Especially  was 
it  fortunate  that  WASHINGTON,  the  President  of  the  Convention, 
was  President  of  the  United  States,  and  HAMILTON,  a  leading 
member,  was  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  RANDOLPH,  who,  in 
the  Convention,  brought  forward  the  plan  that  was  adopted,  was 
Attorney-General,  and  JEFFERSON,  the  author  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  was  Secretary  of  State. 

But  as  in  the  Convention,  so  in  the  first  Congress  and  after 
wards,  sectional  disputes  arose,  which,  though  conducted  for  the 
most  part  with  decorum,  shadowed  dimly  forth  those  future  heated 
discussions  in  that  Department,  that  have,  from  time  to  time, 
shaken  like  an  earthquake  the  country  to  its  centre.  The  in 
terests  of  the  Northern  States  were  different  from  those  of  the 
Southern  States,  and  when  Congress  was  called  to  legislate  on 
subjects  connected  with  those  interests,  it  is  not  strange  that  the 
members  from  the  South,  at  their  stand-point,  should  take  a 
view  of  those  subjects  differing  from  that  taken  by  Northern 
members. 

DUTIES    ON   TONNAGE   AND   IMPOETS. 

The  duties  on  foreign  tonnage  and  imports,  pressed  more 
heavily  on  the  South  than  on  the  North,  inasmuch  as  the  former 


DUTIES    OK   TONNAGE   AND   IMPORTS.  31 

had  fewer  sliips  and  fewer  manufactures  to  be  benefited.  Mr. 
SMITH,  of  South  Carolina,  said  :  "  Gentlemen  have  endeavored 
to  persuade  us  that  a  high  tonnage  duty  will  be  beneficial  to  the 
Union  ;  but  I  would  as  soon  be  persuaded  to  throw  myself  out 
of  a  two-story  window,  as  to  believe  that  a  high  tonnage  will  be 
favorable  to  South  Carolina."  And  in  respect  to  duties  on  im 
ports,  Mr.  MADISON  remarked,  "  If  there  is  a  disposition  repre 
sented  to  complain  of  the  oppression  of  government,  have  not 
the  citizens  of  the  Southern  States  more  just  ground  of  com 
plaint  than  others  ?  "  "  The  system  can  only  be  acceptable  to 
them,  because  it  is,  essentially,  necessary  to  be  adopted  for  the 
public  good." 

And  yet,  on  another  occasion  Mr.  MADISON  said,  in  reference 
to  the  same  subject,  "  I  believe  every  gentleman  who  hears  the 
observations  from  the  different  quarters  of  this  House,  discovers 
great  reason  for  every  friend  of  the  United  States  to  congratulate 
himself  upon  the  evident  disposition  which  has  been  displayed 
to  conduct  business  with  harmony  and  concert."  And  Mr. 
AMES  said,  "  The  gentlemen  from  the  southward  who  suppose 
their  States  most  likely  to  be  affected  by  a  discrimination  in  the 
tonnage  duty,  have  concluded  their  arguments  with  a  candor 
which  does  honor  to  their  patriotism." 

It  is  very  evident  that  on  this  subject  there  was  a  spirit  of 
conciliation  on  the  part  of  leading  men,  and  especially  on  the 
part  of  Southern  gentlemen,  who  consented  to  sacrifice  the  in 
terests  of  their  States  for  the  public  good.  The  Northern  States 
had  wished  for  the  establishment  of  the  Constitution,  chiefly,  for 
the  protection  of  their  commercial  interests.  This  legislation  of 
the  first  Congress  under  the  Constitution  secured  to  them  this 
protection.  The  South  patiently,  or  rather  cheerfully,  acquiesced 
in  bearing  the  burdens  imposed  by  this  legislation.  "  If," 
said  Mr.- AMES,  "  I  may  judge  of  the  feelings  of  the  people  by 
those  of  their  representatives  on  this  floor,  I  may  venture  to  say 
that  there  never  was  less  reason  to  apprehend  -envy  and  discord 
than  at  this  time.  I  believe  the  fact  is  so,  because  I  feel  it." 
He  was  conscious  of  a  patriotic  regard  for  the  whole  country. 
"  I  look,"  said  he,  "  with  an  equal  eye  upon  the  success  of  every 
State  through  the  whole  extent  of  United  America.  I  wish 
their  interests  to  be  equally  consulted."  Tims  were  the  com- 


32  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

mercial  sacrifices  of  the  South  appreciated,  and  their  patriotism, 
which  made  them  submit  to  the  sacrifices,  reciprocated  by  a 
representative  man  of  the  North.  In  this  contest  the  South 
yielded  to  the  North  for  the  general  good  of  the  country. 


SECTIONAL   DISCUSSION    OF    SLAVERY. 

In  the  Constitutional  Convention,  the  Southern  States  had 
obtained  provisions  which  secured  to  them  their  property  in 
slaves,  and  the  right  to  import  slaves  for  twenty  years.  But  in 
Congress,  Feb.  11, 1790,  "  The  Address  of  the  Quaker  Meeting," 
from  certain  Northern  States,  was  presented  against  the  contin 
uance  of  the  African  slave  trade,  which  was  permitted  by  the 
Constitution,  until  1808.  And  Feb.  11,  1790,  "  The  Memorial 
of  the  Pennsylvania  Abolition  Society  "  was  presented,  praying 
for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  United  States,  which,  by 'the 
Constitution,  was  left  under  the  States. 

These  two  memorials  were  received  in  one  spirit  by  Southern 
members,  and  in  another  and  different  spirit  by  Northern  mem 
bers.  The  former  saw  clearly  that  the  petitioners  were  aiming 
a  blow  at  their  pecuniary  and  their  social  interests,  by  urging 
Congress  to  pass  unconstitutional  laws  on  the  subject  of  slavery, 
and  by  holding  slaveholders  up  to  the  moral  abhorrence  of  the 
world ;  as  if  Congress  had  the  power  to  legislate  for  the  promo 
tion  of  morals  and  religion. 

The  Northern  members,  some  of  them,  seemed  to  give  a  warm 
welcome  to  the  petitions,  as  if  they  were  glad  to  ventilate  their 
abhorrence  of  slave-trading  and  slaveholding. 

In  this  contest  the  Southern  States  retained,  indeed,  their 
constitutional  rights,  but  they  had  to  struggle  earnestly  for  them. 
The  temper  of  Northern  members  shown  on  this  occasion  was 
manifested  at  times  afterwards.  Thus,  Jan.  1795,  Mr.  DEXTER, 
of  Massachusetts,  moved,  as  an  amendment  to  a  motion  for  nat 
uralizing  foreigners,  "  that  each  man  naturalized  should  re 
nounce  the  possession  of  slaves,"  and,  as  an  amendment  to  this 
amendment,  Mr.  THATCHER,  of  Massachusetts,  moved,  "  and  he 
never  would  possess  slaves." 

Mr.  MADISON,  in  reply  to  Messrs.  DEXTER  and  THATCHER, 


BANK   OF   THE   UNITED    STATES.  33 

said  "  that  the  mention  of  such  a  thing  would  have  a  very  bad 
effect  on  that  species  of  property." 

Mr.  "W.  SMITH,  of  South  Carolina,  a  distinguished  member, 
in  the  course  of  the  discussion  on  slavery,  said  "  that  the 
Southern  States  never  would  have  entered  into  the  Confedera 
tion  unless  their  property  (in  slaves)  had  been  guarantied  to 
them." 

Mr.  BOUDINOT,  of  ISTew  Jersey,  said  :  "  There  is  a  wide  dif 
ference  between  justifying  the  ungenerous  traffic,  and  supporting 
a  claim  to  property  vested  at  the  time  of  the  formation  of  the 
Constitution,  and  guarantied  thereby." 

The  effect  of  the  motions  of  Messrs.  DEXTER  and  THATCHER,. 
if  they  had  prevailed,  would  have  been  to  lessen  emigration  to 
the  slave  States,  and  thus  to  lessen  their  political  power. 

BANK   OF    THE   UNITED    STATES. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Mr.  HAMILTON,  had  advocated 
the  establishment  of  a  National  Bank,  on  the  ground  that  it 
would  promote  the  prosperous  administration  of  the  finances, 
and  help  to  support  the  public  credit.  When  a  bill  in  conformity 
to  his  plan  was,  in  1791,  sent  down  from  the  Senate,  it  was 
suffered  to  pass  to  its  third  reading  without  opposition.  On  the 
final  question  a  powerful  opposition  was  made  to  its  passage  by 
Mr.  MADISON  and  others. 

It  was  asserted  by  them  that  the  powers  of  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  which  it  might  legitimately  exercise,  were 
enumerated  in  the  Constitution.  In  this  enumeration,  the 
power  to  charter  a  bank  was  not  to  be  found.  They,  moreover;, 
insisted  that  it  could  not  be  implied  from  the  powers  that  were 
given  to  the  Government,  and  that,  by  any  fair  construction,  no» 
clause  in  the  Constitution  could  be  understood  to  imply  so  im 
portant  a  power  as  that  of  creating  a  corporation. 

On  the  other  side,  in  favor  of  the  establishment  of  a  bank,  ft 
was  asserted,  that  incidental  as  well  as  express  powers  must, 
necessarily,  belong  to  every  government,  and  that  when  a  power 
is  delegated  to  effect  particular  objects,  all  the  known  and  usual 
means  of  effecting  them  must  pass  also,  and  after  taking  a  com 
prehensive  view  of  the  powers  given  to  the  General  Government, 


oi  THK    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

it  was  contended  that  a  bank  was  a  known  and  usual  instrument, 
by  which  several  of  them  were  exercised.  Taking  into  consid 
eration  the  utility  of  a  bank  in  managing  the  finances,  and  sup 
porting  public  credit,  the  bill  was  passed  in  the  House  by  a 
majority  of  nineteen  voices.  In  the  cabinet,  the  Attorney-Gen 
eral,  Mr.  RANDOLPH,  and  the  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  JEFFERSON, 
were  opposed  to  it  on  constitutional  grounds,  while  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  was  in  favor  of  it,  and  the  President  added  his 
signature  to  the  bill. 

While  the  bill  was  under  debate,  Mr.  TUCKER,  of  Georgia, 
remarked,  "  That  a  gentleman  from  Virginia  has  well  observed 
that  we  appear  to  be  divided  by  a  geographical  line  ;  not  a  gen 
tleman  North  of  that  line  is  opposed  to  the  bill ;  and  where  is 
the  gentleman  to  the  Southward  that  is  in  favor  of  it  1  "  The 
Northern  States  won  the  victory  over  the  Southern,  if  not  over 
the  Constitution. 

THE    EXCISE   LAW. 

The  Excise  law,  by  which  a  duty  was  laid  on  spirits  distilled 
within  the  United  States,  was  opposed,  very  strongly,  by  a  ma 
jority  of  the  members  of  Southern  and  Southwestern  States,  on 
the  ground  that  it  would  operate  very  unequally  and  against  the 
interests  of  their  constituents,  who  used  foreign  distilled  liquor  to 
a  very  inconsiderable  amount.  The  bill  was  passed  by  Northern 
members,  influenced,  it  was  said,  by  the  fact  that  the  commer 
cial  States  depended  chiefly  on  foreign  spirits.  The  whiskey  in 
surrection  grew  chiefly  out  of  the  opposition  to  this  law.  The 
law,  thus  operating  unequally,  was  wisely  repealed. 

THE   ASSUMPTION   OF   STATE   DEBTS. 

On  the  9th  of  January,  1790,  Mr.  HAMILTON,  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  gave  notice  to  the  House  of  Representatives  that  he 
was  ready  to  make  his  report  on  public  credit,  which  he  had 
prepared  in  obedience  to  the  resolution  of  the  21st  of  Sept.,  1789. 
In  that  celebrated  report  he  proposed  the  Assumption  of  State 
debts,  and  to  fund  them  in  common  with  that  which  constituted 
the  proper  debt  of  the  Union. 


LOCATION  OF  THE  SEAT  OF  GOVERNMENT.          35 

Tliis  proposal  was  opposed  by  Southern  members,  on  the 
ground  that  it  would  give  undue  influence  to  the  General  Gov 
ernment,  and  would  thus  weaken  the  State  Governments  ;  that 
it  would  not  be  justified  by  the  Constitution,  the  powers  of  that 
instrument  being  specified,  and  this  was  not  among  them  ;  that 
it  was  unjust,  because  it  would  make  no  discrimination  between 
those  States  which  had  taxed  themselves  to  discharge  the  claims 
against  them,  and  those  which  had  not  made  the  same  exertions. 

O  * 

In  favor  of  the  measure  it  was  asserted  by  Northern  mem 
bers,  that  the  debts  contracted  by  the  States  were  not  contracted 
for  the  benefit  of  the  individual  States,  but  for  the  common  good 
of  the  Union,  in  the  war  against  the  common  enemy  ;  that  the 
measure  would  put  an  end  to  speculation,  by  fixing  the  value 
of  the  securities  ;  that  it  would  restore  public  confidence. 

A  large  amount  of  these  securities  were  owned  at  the  North, 
where  they  were  obtained  in  the  course  of  trade.  Many  of  them 
had  been  purchased  at  very  low  rates,  as  was  said,  for  a  song. 

After  a  very  heated  debate,  highly  irritating  to  the  parties, 
the  resolution  failed  to  pass,  by  a  majority  of  two  against  it. 

LOCATION    OF   THE    SEAT    OF   GOVERNMENT. 

July  0,  1T90.  Mr.  GOODIIUE,  of  Massachusetts,  moved  in  the 
House  :  "  That  the  permanent  seat  of  the  General  Government 
ought  to  be  at  some  convenient  place,  on  the  east  bank  of  the  river 
Susquehanna,  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania."  In  support  of  his 
motion,  he  prefaced  it  with  the  following  remark  :  "  The  Eastern 
members,  with  the  members  from  New  York,  have  agreed  to  fix 
on  a  place  upon  national  principles,  without  regard  to  their  own 
convenience,  and  have  turned  their  minds  to  the  Susquehanna." 
The  place  contemplated  was  "Wright's  Ferry,  about  35  miles 
from  navigable  water. 

This  sectional  movement  on  the  part  of  Eastern  and  North 
ern  members,  in  favor  of  a  place  which  had  not  a  great  deal  to 
recommend  it,  awakened  very  strong  sectional  feelings  on  the 
part  of  the  Southern  members,  who  were  in  favor  of  the  bank 
of  the  Potomac,  as  an  appropriate  place.  To  this  place  the 
Northern  members  were  strongly  opposed,  proposing,  instead 
of  it,  if  not  "Wright's  Ferry,  Germantown  and  Baltimore. 


3G  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

In  view  of  the  above-mentioned  combination  of  Northern 
members,  RICHARD  II.  LEE,  in  the  course  of  his  speech,  said : 
"  It  is  well  known  with  what  difficulty  the  Constitution  was 
adopted  in  Virginia.  It  was  then  said  that  there  would  be  Con 
federacies  of  the  States  east  of  Pennsylvania,  which  would 
destroy  the  Southern  States  ;  that  they  would  unite  their  coun 
cils  in  discussing  questions  relative  to  their  particular  interests, 
and  the  Southern  States  wrould  be  disregarded.  To  these  sus 
picions  it  was  answered  :  "  Xo  !  It  was  contended  that  the  mag 
nanimous  policy,  arising  from  mutual  interests  and  common  dan 
gers,  would  unite  all  the  States,  and  make  them  pursue  objects 
of  general  good.  But  if  it  should  be  found  that  there  were  such 
Confederacies  as  were  predicted,  that  the  Northern  States  did 
consult  their  partial  interests,  and  form  combinations  to  support 
them  without  regard  to  their  Southern  brethren,  they  would  be 
alarmed,  and  the  faith  of  all  south  of  the  Potomac  would  be 
shaken." 

Mr.  MADISON  said,  in  the  course  of  his  remarks  :  "  But  give 
me  leave  now  to  say  that,  if  prophets  had  arisen  in  that  body, 
(the  Convention  of  Virginia,)  and  brought  the  declarations  and 
proceedings  of  this  day  to  view,  I  as  firmly  believe  Virginia 
might  not  have  been  a  part  of  the  Union  at  this  moment." 

BARGAIN   IN    CONGRESS. 

This  measure  became  combined  with  the  Assumption  Bill. 
Each  had  failed  by  small  majorities ;  both  were  afterwards 
passed.  The  Eastern  and  Middle  States  wrere  for  the  assump 
tion  ;  the  Southern  States  were  against  it ;  the  latter  were  for 
the  Potomac  for  the  seat  of  Government ;  the  former  were  for 
the  Susquehanna.  The  discontent  was  extreme  on  each  side,  at 
losing  its  favorite  measure.  At  last  the  two  measures  were  com 
bined.  Two  members  from  the  Potomac,  who  had  voted  against 
the  assumption,  agreed  to  change  their  votes  :  a  few  from  the 
Eastern  and  Middle  States,  who  had  voted  against  the  Potomac 
agreed  to  change  in  its  favor ;  and  so  the  two  measures  were 
passed. 

Mr.  JEFFERSON  gave  this  account  of  it,  omitting  his  stric 
tures  :  "  This  measure  (the  Assumption  of  State  debts)  produced 


BARGAIN   IN    CONGRESS.  37 

the  most  bitter  and  angry  contest  ever  known  in  Congress  before 
or  since  the  Union  of  the  States.  I  arrived  in  the  midst  of  it ; 
but  a  stranger  to  the  ground,  a  stranger  to  the  actors  in  it,  so 
long  absent  as  to  have  lost  all  familiarity  with  the  subject,  and 
as  yet  unaware  of  its  object.  I  took  no  concern  in  it.  The 
great  and  trying  question,  however,  was  lost  in  the  House  of 
Representatives.  So  high  were  the  feuds  excited  on  this  sub 
ject,  that,  on  its  rejection,  business  was  suspended.  Congress  met 
and  adjourned  from  day  to  day  without  doing  any  thing,  the 
parties  being  too  much  out  of  temper  to  do  business  together. 
The  Eastern  members  threatened  secession  and  dissolution. 
HAMILTON  was  in  despair.  As  I  was  going  to  the  President's 
one  day,  I  met  him  in  the  street.  He  walked  with  me  back 
wards  and  forwards  before  the  President's  door  for  half  an  hour. 
He  painted  pathetically  the  temper  into  which  the  Legislature 
had  been  wrought ;  the  disgust  of  those  who  were  called  the 
creditor  States,  (the  Northern,)  the  danger  of  the  secession  of 
their  members,  and  of  the  separation  of  the  States.  He  ob 
served  that  the  members  of  the  Administration  ought  to  act  in 
concert ;  that  though  this  question  was  not  of  my  department, 
yet  a  common  duty  should  make  it  a  common  concern  ;  that  the 
President  was  the  centre,  in  which  all  administrative  questions 
ultimately  rested,  and  that  all  of  us  should  rally  round  him,  and 
support,  with  joint  efforts,  measures  approved  by  him,  and  that 
the  question  having  been  lost  by  a  small  majority  only,  that  an 
appeal  from  me  to  the  judgment  and  discretion  of  some  of  my 
friends  might  effect  a  change  in  the  vote,  and  the  machine  of 
government,  now  suspended,  might  be  again  set  in  motion.  I 
told  him  I  was  really  a  stranger  to  the  whole  subject ;  that,  not 
having  yet  informed  myself  of  the  system  of  finances  adopted,  I 
knew  not  how  far  this  was  a  necessary  sequence  ;  that  undoubt 
edly,  if  its  rejection  endangered  the  dissolution  of  the  Union  at 
this  incipient  stage,  I  should  deem  that  the  most  unfortunate  of 
all  consequences,  to  avert  which  all  partial  and  temporary  evils 
should  be  yielded.  I  proposed,  however,  to  him,  to  dine  with 
me,  next  day,  and  I  would  invite  another  friend  or  two,  bring 
them  into  conference  together,  and  I  thought  it  impossible  that 
reasonable  men,  consulting  together  coolly,  could  fail,  by  some 
mutual  sacrifice  of  opinion,  to  form  a  compromise  which  would 


38  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

save  the  Union.  The  discussion  took  place.  I  could  take  no 
part  in  it  but  an  exhortatory  one,  because  I  was  a  stranger  to 
the  circumstances  which  should  govern  it.  But  it  was  finally 
agreed  that  whatever  importance  was  attached  to  the  rejection 
of  this  proposition,  the  preservation  of  the  Union  and  concord 
among  the  States  was  more  important,  and  therefore  it  would 
be  better  that  the  vote  of  rejection  should  be  rescinded — to  effect 
which,  some  members  should  change  their  votes.  But  it  was 
observed  that  this  pill  would  be  peculiarly  bitter  to  the  Southern 
States,  and  that  some  concomitant  measure  should  be  adopted 
to  sweeten  it  to  them.  There  had  before  been  propositions  to  fix 
the  seat  of  Government  either  at  Philadelphia  or  at  George 
town,  on  the  Potomac  ;  and  it  was  thought  that  by  giving  it  to 
Philadelphia  for  ten  years,  and  to  Georgetown  permanently  af 
terwards,  this  might,  as  an  anodyne,  calm  the  ferment  which 
might  be  excited  by  the  other  measure  alone :  so  two  of  the 
Potomac  members  (WniTE  and  LEE,  but  the  former  with  a  re 
vulsion  of  stomach  almost  convulsive)  agreed  to  change  their 
votes,  and  HAMILTON  undertook  to  carry  the  other  point." 
Abridgment  of  Debates,  vol.  i.,  p.  250. 

The  Northern  members  contended  with  great  earnestness 
against  the  Potomac  for  the  seat  of  Government ;  Mr.  BOUDINOT, 
Mr.  AMES,  Mr.  LAWRENCE,  severally,  proposing  the  Delaware, 
Germantown,  Baltimore,  instead  of  the  Potomac,  which  latter 
finally  received  a  majority  of  the  votes,  probably  through  the 
influence  of  HAMILTON.  The  Northern  States,  by  the  assump 
tion  of  State  debts  by  Congress,  obtained  millions,  which  en 
riched  many  of  their  inhabitants,  indeed,  some  of  the  members 
who  helped  to  pass  the  bill.  The  Southern  States  obtained  for 
the  seat  of  Government  their  favorite  location,  and  a  much  bet 
ter  location  than  Wright's  Ferry,  which  had  been  selected  by 
the  combination  of  Eastern  members. 

This  is  the  first  sectional  combination  in  Congress  for  carry 
ing  a  measure  that  I  have  seen  noticed.  The  assumption  of 
State  debts  furnished  the  occasion  of  the  first  threat  of  secession, 
and  breaking  up  the  Government.  It  was  made  by  the  North* 
ern  members. 


FUGITIVES   FROM   JUSTICE   AND   FROM   LABOR.  39 

FUGITIVES    FROM   JUSTICE   AND   FROM   LABOR. 

July  5,  1793.  The  House  proceeded  to  consider  the  bill  sent 
from  the  Senate,  entitled  "  An  act  respecting  fugitives  from  jus 
tice  and  persons  escaping  from  the  service  of  their  masters," 
which  lay  on  the  table ;  whereupon  the  said  bill,  with  the  amend 
ments  agreed  to  yesterday,  wras  read  the  third  time  ;  and  on  the 
question  that  the  same  do  pass,  it  was  resolved  in  the  affirma 
tive  ;  yeas,  48,  nays,  7. 

The  bill  came  down  from  the  Senate,  whose  debates  were 
not  published,  and  seems  to  have  passed  the  House  without  de 
bate,  and  almost  without  discussion,  there  being  but  seven  votes 
against,  and  two  of  these,  Messrs.  MERCER  and  PARKER,  from 
slave  States.  Nor  does  it  appear  to  what  part  of  the  bill  they 
objected,  whether  to  the  part  in  relation  to  fugitives  from 
justice,  or  to  those  who  fled  from  service,  for  both  classes  of  fu 
gitives  were  comprehended  in  the  same  bill.  It  was  passed  on 
a  message  from  President  Washington,  founded  on  a  communi 
cation  from  the  Governor  of  Pennsylvania  in  relation  to  a  fugi 
tive  from  justice  who  had  taken  refuge  in  Yirginia,  and  because 
it  was  necessary  to  have  an  act  of  Congress  to  give  effect  to  the 
rendition  clause  in  the  Constitution.  There  was  but  little  ne 
cessity,  in  those  times,  and  long  after,  for  an  act  of  Congress  to 
authorize  the  recovery  of  fugitive  slaves.  The  laws  of  the  States 
and  still  more,  the  force  of  public  opinion,  were  the  owners'  best 
safeguards.  Public  opinion  was  against  the  abduction  of  slaves ; 
and,  if  any  one  was  seduced  from  his  owner,  it  was  done  fur 
tively  and  secretly,  without  show  or  force,  and  as  any  other  moral 
offence  would  be  committed.  State  laws  favored  the  owner  to 
a  greater  extent  than  the  acts  of  Congress  did  or  could.  In 
Pennsylvania  an  act  was  passed  in  1780,  and  repealed  only  in 
1847,  discriminating  between  the  traveller  and  sojourner  and 
the  permanent  resident,  allowing  the  former  to  remain  six 
months  in  the  State  before  his  slaves  could  become  subject  to 
emancipation  laws  ;  and,  in  the  case  of  a  Federal  Government 
officer,  allowing  as  much  more  time  as  his  duties  required  him 
to  remain.  New  York  had  the  same  act,  only  varying  in  time, 
which  was  nine  months.  While  these  two  acts  were  in  force, 
and  supported  by  public  opinion,  the  traveller  and  sojourner 


4:0  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

tvas  safe  with  his  slaves  in  these  States,  and  the  same  in  the 
other  States.  There  was  no  trouble  about  fugitive  slaves  in 
those  times.  This  act  of  1793  did  not  grow  out  of  any  such 
troubles,  but  out  of  the  case  of  a  fugitive  from  justice.  It  was 
that  case  which  brought  the  subject  before  Congress,  and  in  the 
act  that  was  passed,  the  case  of  fugitives  from  justice  was  first 
provided  for,  the  first  and  second  sections  of  the  act  being  given 
to  that  branch  of  the  subject,  and  the  third  and  fourth  to  the 
other — all  bcief  and  plain,  and  executable  without  expense  or 
fuss.  In  the  case  of  a  slave,  the  owner  was  allowed  to  seize  him 
wherever  he  saw  him,  by  day  or  by  night,  and  Sundays  or  week 
days,  just  as  if  he  were  in  his  own  State,  and  a  penalty  of  $500 
attached  to  any  person  who  obstructed  him  in  this  seizure.  The 
only  authority  he  wanted  was  after  the  seizure,  and  to  justify 
the  carrying  back,  and  for  that  purpose  the  affidavit  of  the  owner 
or  his  agent  was  sufficient.  This  act  was  perfect  except  in  rely 
ing  upon  State  officers  not  being  subject  to  the  Federal  law,  and 
being  forbid  to  act  after  slavery  became  a  subject  of  political 
agitation. — Bentorfs  Debates,  vol.  i.,  p.  412. 

The  law  was  judiciously  drawn,  and  entirely  satisfactory  to 
both  sections  of  the  country ;  but  the  Northern  States,  in  the 
progress  of  years,  refused  to  carry  it  out,  and  placed  obstacles 
in  the  way. 

ME.  JEFFERSON'S  LETTER  TO  GENERAL  WASHINGTON. 

"  PHILADELPHIA,  May  23,  1792. 

-*  #  -::-  <c  True  wisdom  would  direct,  that  they  (means) 
should  be  temperate  and  peaceable ;  but  the  division  of  senti 
ment  and  interest  happens,  unfortunately,  to  be  so  geographical, 
that  no  mortal  can  say  that  what  is  most  wise  and  temperate 
would  prevail  against  what  is  most  easy  and  obvious.  I  can 
scarcely  contemplate  a  more  incalculable  evil  than  the  breaking 
up  of  the  Union  into  two  or  more  parts.  Yet,  when  we  consider 
the  mass  which  opposed  the  original  coalescence ;  when  we  con 
sider  that  it  lay  chiefly  in  the  Southern  quarter ;  that  the  Leg 
islature  have  availed  themselves  of  no  occasion  of  allaying  it, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  when  Northern  and  Southern  prejudices 
have  come  into  conflict,  the  latter  have  been  sacrificed  and  the 


MR.  JEFFERSON'S  LETTER  TO  GEN.  WASHINGTON.  41 

former  soothed,  that  the  owers  of  the  debt  are  in  the  Southern, 
and  the  holders  in  the  Northern  division  ;  that  the  anti-federal 
champions  are  now  strengthened  in  their  arguments  by  the  ful 
filment  of  their  predictions ;  that  this  has  been  brought  about 
by  the  monarchical  federalists  themselves,  who  have  been  for 
the  new  Government  merely  as  a  stepping-stone  to  monarchy, 
and  who  have  adopted  the  very  construction  of  the  Constitution 
of  which,  when  advocating  its  acceptance  before  the  tribunal  of 
the  people,  they  had  declared  it  unsusceptible  ;  that  the  repub 
lican  federalists  who  espoused  the  same  Government  for  its  in 
trinsic  merits,  are  disarmed  of  their  weapons  ;  that  which  they 
deemed  as  prophecy  having  become  true  as  history ;  who  can 
be  sure  that  these  things  may  not  proselyte  the  small  number 
which  was  wanting  to  place  the  majority  on  the  other  side? 
And  this  is  the  event  at  which  I  tremble,  and  to  prevent  which 
I  consider  your  continuing  at  the  head  of  affairs  as  of  the  last 
importance.  The  confidence  of  the  whole  Union  is  centred  in 
you.  Your  being  at  the  helm  will  be  more  than  an  answer  to 
every  argument  which  can  be  used  to  alarm  and  lead  the  people 
in  any  quarter  into  violence  and  secession.  North  and  South 
will  hang  together,  if  they  have  you  to  hang  upon." 

We  have  here  the  fact  that  sectional  differences  of  opinion 
and  sectional  feelings  existed  of  a  dangerous  character,  and  that 
Washington  was  urged  to  accept  of  the  Presidency  a  second 
time,  in  order  to  prevent  "  violence  and  secession."  Allusion  is 
also  made  to  the  large  construction  given  to  the  text  of  the  Con 
stitution  by  those  who  controlled  some  of  the  departments  of  the 
Government/  A  dominant  party  are  always  under  a  temptation 
to  enlarge  the  powers  of  the  General  Government  at  the  expense 
of  the  powers  reserved  to  the  people  of  the  several  States.  They 
are  apt  to  think  that  their  favorite  measure  had  better  be  passed 
in  Congress,  or  sanctioned  by  the  Executive,  even  at  the  expense 
of  the  Constitution.  Party  leaders,  even  during  the  administra 
tion  of  Washington,  form  no  exception  to  this  love  of  power. 

REMARKS. 

1.  The  administration  of  General  Washington  was  distin 
guished  for  the  wisdom  of  its  measures,  for  the  energy  with 


42  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

wliicli  they  were  carried  out,  and  for  the  great  success  which 
attended  them.  The  several  departments,  the  legislative,  the 
judicial,  and  executive  taking  form,  now  for  the  first  time,  and 
filled  with  men  of  experience,  of  undoubted  patriotism,  and  of 
high  talent,  were  in  harmony  with  one  another. 

2.  And  yet,  there  was  a  difference  of  opinion  in  Congress, 
and  in  the  cabinet,  as  to  the  construction  to  be  given  to  the 
Constitution,  in  its  application  to  the  purposes  for  which  it  was 
framed.  Alexander  Hamilton,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  the 
leading  spirit  in  the  Executive  Department,  was,  in  the  Conven 
tion,  in  favor  of  forming  a  strong  government,  and  what  he 
failed  to  accomplish  in  that  body  in  the  framework  of  the  Con 
stitution,  he  endeavored  to  work  out  in  practice  by  a  broad 
construction  of  that  instrument,  by  magnifying  its  "  implied 
powers,"  and  the  "  necessary  powers."  "  Necessary  powers  " 
were  understood  to  mean  those  powers  that  were  deemed  neces 
sary  to  put  the  government  in  operation  under  the  Consti 
tution. 

The  terms  "  necessary  powers  "  and  "  implied  powers  "  were 
vague,  and  would  vary  according  to  the  character  of  the  mind 
that  should  exercise  a  judgment  concerning  them.  What  would 
seem  to  be  "  necessary  "  and  "  implied  "  to  one  mind,  would 
not  seem  "  necessary  "  or  "  implied  "  to  another  mind.  "With 
Hamilton,  his  old  companion  in  arms,  Knox,  the  Secretary  of 
War,  acted  in  promoting  his  views. 

Jefferson,  Secretary  of  State,  and  Edmund  Randolph,  Attor 
ney-General,  differed  from  Hamilton  in  their  views  of  the  power 
granted  to  the  General  Government  in  the  Constitution,  and 
looked  at  the  powers  reserved  to  the  States  as  well  as  at  those 
delegated  to  the  General  Government. 

Hamilton,  with  his  penetrating  and  logical  mind,  with  his 
extraordinary  energy,  with  his  constructive  and  productive 
genius,  had  the  ear  of  Washington  as  well  as  of  Knox-,  all  of 
them  military  men,  and  all  of  them  disgusted  with  the  weak 
ness  of  the  old  Confederation. 

Jefferson,  with  his  gift  of  language,  with  his  insight  and  fore 
sight,  with  his  constructive  mind,  accustomed  to  deal  with  prin 
ciples,  was  aided,  in  his  view,  by  Randolph,  whose  plan  of  a 
Constitution  had  been  adopted  in  the  Convention,  and  who  tin- 


KEMAJKKS.  43 

derstood  accurately  what  was  its  meaning,  and  who  was  not  dis 
posed  to  magnify  its  implied  powers. 

In  both  Houses  of  Congress  were  leading  men,  who  were 
also  divided  in  their  views  as  to  the  "  implied  powers  "  of  the 
Constitution,  a  portion  of  them  being  in  favor  of  a  "  broad  con 
struction  "  of  its  powers,  and  another  portion  being  in  favor  of 
a  "strict  construction."  The  practical  men  of  the  Northern 
States,  who  valued  the  Constitution  chiefly  for  "  commercial 
purposes,"  and  who  felt  the  value  of  public  credit,  generally 
adopted  the  views  of  Mr.  Hamilton.  The  statesmen  of  the 
South,  who  looked  at  political  principles  and  relations,  generally 
adopted  the  viewrs  of  Mr.  Jefferson. 

3.  Mr.  Hamilton  was  an  admirer  of  the  British  government, 
in  which  parliament  has  almost  unlimited  powers ;  and  it  was 
supposed  that  he  endeavored  to  assimilate  the  General  Govern 
ment  to  that,  notwithstanding  the  rights  reserved  to  the  States. 
In  his  celebrated  report  of  1T91  he  claimed  power  for  the  Fed 
eral  Government  to  encourage  learning,  agriculture,  and  manu 
factures,  all  under  the  authority  to  levy  imports  for  the  "  gen 
eral  welfare."  Mr.  Jefferson  was  an  admirer  of  the  early  prin 
ciples  of  the  French  Revolution,  and  was  a  hater  of  Great 
Britain,  and  in  these  respects  he  had  the  sympathy  of  the  people 
of  the  United  States,  who  remembered  the  wrongs  they  had  re 
ceived  from  the  one  nation,  and  the  favors  they  had  received 
from  the  other.  The  policy  of  the  Administration  in  respect  to 
the  two  nations  was,  to  some  extent,  the  ground  of  sectional 
difference  of  opinion,  the  leaders  of  the  opposition  being  prin 
cipally  in  the  Southern  States. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

ADMINISTRATION. 
MARCH  4,  1797— MARCH  4,  1801. 

To  the  election  of  Mr.  ADAMS  there  was  an  opposition  in.tho 
Southern  States,  but  not  violent.  It  was  generally  conceded 
that  his  patriotism,  his  talents,  his  experience,  and  services,  en 
titled  him  to  the  Presidency. 

But  in  the  course  of  his  administration,  this  sectional  oppo 
sition  gained  strength,  chiefly  on  account  of  his  war  measures, 
by  which  eighty  thousand  men  were  subjected  to  his  order, 
which  was  supposed  to  be  contrary  to  the  theory  of  our  Gov 
ernment  ;  the  acts  for  increasing  the  navy ;  and  especially  on 
account  of  the  passage  of  the  alien  and  sedition  laws,  and  pros 
ecutions  under  them.  This  opposition  was  largely  sectional, 
and  was  based  chiefly  on  the  exorbitant  powers  supposed  to  be 
claimed  by  the  General  Government.  The  leading  men  in  the 
opposition,  for  their  defence,  fell  back  on  the  residuary  power 
of  the  States  secured  by  the  Constitution,  as  the  means  of  pre 
venting  the  establishment  of  a  consolidated  government  instead 
of  a  Federal  one. 

THE   ASSERTION    OF   STATE   RIGHTS. 

"Virginia,  at  a  meeting  of  her  Legislature,  early  in  the  session 
of  1798,  passed  a  series  of  resolutions  declaratory  of  State  rights, 
and  condemnatory  of  the  alien  and  sedition  laws,  and  other 
measures  of  the  Government,  as  having  a  tendency  to  change 


THE   ASSERTION    OF   STATE   EIGHTS.  45 

its  character  from  a  Federal  to  a  national  Government.  Among 
other  things,  these  resolutions  affirm,  that  "  it  (the  Legislature) 
views  the  powers  of  the  General  Government  as  resulting  from 
the  compact  to  which  the  States  are  parties,  as  limited  by  the 
plain  sense  and  intention  of  the  instrument  constituting  that 
compact,  as  no  further  valid  than  they  are  authorized  by  the 
grants  enumerated  in  that  compact ;  and  that  in  case  of  a  delib 
erate,  palpable,  and  dangerous  exercise  of  powers  not  granted 
in  said  compact,  the  States  who  are  parties  thereto  have  the 
right,  and  are  in  duty  bound  to  interpose  for  arresting  the  prog 
ress  of  the  evil,  and  for  maintaining  within  their  respective 
limits  the  authorities,  rights,  and  liberties  appertaining  to 
them." 

In  the  resolutions  passed  by  the  Legislature  of  Kentucky  in 
1798,  it  is  declared  "  that  whensoever  the  General  Government 
assumes  and  delegates  powers,  its  acts  are  unauthoritative,  void, 
and  of  no  force ;  that  each  State  acceded  as  a  State,  and  is  an 
integral  party,  its  co-States  forming  as  to  itself  the  other  party  ; 
that  the  Government  created  by  this  compact  was  not  made  the 
exclusive  or  final  judge  of  the  extent  of  the  powers  delegated  to 
it,  since  that  would  have  made  its  discretion  and  not  the  Consti 
tution  the  measure  of  its  powers  ;  that,  as  in  all  other,  cases  of  a 
compact  among  parties  having  no  common  judge,  each  party 
has  an  equal  right  to  judge  for  itself,  as  well  of  the  infractions 
as  the  mode  and  measure  of  redress." 

The  resolutions  of  Virginia  were  drawn  up  by  Mr.  MADISON  ; 
those  of  Kentucky  were  said  to  be  sketched,  but  not  fully  pre 
pared,  by  Mr.  JEFFERSON. 

It  was  believed  that  the  Administration,  under  the  guidance 
of  Northern  men,  had  assumed  powers  not  enumerated  in  the 
Constitution,  and,  in  this  way,  had  usurped  powers  belonging 
to  the  States. 

THE   DOCTRINE    OF   STATE   RIGHTS. 

As  the  doctrine  of  State  rights  has  been  adopted  at  different 
times,  by  both  the  South  and  the  North,  in  their  relations  to 
the  General  Government,  it  seems  proper  to  give  some  account 
of  its  origin  and  its  sectional  influences. 


46  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 


LUTHER   MARTIN  S    LETTER. 

LUTHER  MARTIN  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Legislature  of  Mary 
land  on  the  formation  of  the  Federal  Constitution  in  1787,  and 
the  composition  of  the  Convention,  of  which  the  following  is  an 
extract : 

"  There  was  one  party,  whose  object  and  wish  is  to  abolish 
and  annihilate  all  State  Governments,  and  bring  forward  one 
General  Government  over  this  extensive  continent,  of  a  mo 
narchical  nature,  under  certain  restrictions  and  limitations. 
Those  who  openly  avowed  this  sentiment  were,  it  is  true,  but 
few  ;  yet  it  is  equally  true  that  there  was  a  considerable  number 
who  did  not  openly  avow  it — who  were,  by  myself  and  many 
others  of  the  Convention,  considered  as  being  in  reality  favorers 
of  that  sentiment,  and,  acting  upon  those  principles,  covertly  en 
deavoring  to  carry  into  effect  what  they  well  knew  openly  and 
a  vowed  ]y  could  not  be  accomplished. 

"  The  second  party  was  not  for  the  abolition  of  State  Gov 
ernments,  nor  for  the  introduction  of  a  monarchical  Government 
in  any  form ;  but  they  wished  to  establish  such  a  system  as 
could  give  their  own  States  undue  power  and  influence  in  the 
Government  over  the  other  States. 

"  A  third  party  was  what  I  considered  truly  Federal  and 
Republican.  This  party  was  nearly  equal  in  number  with  the 
other  two,  and  was  composed  of  the  delegations  from  Connecti 
cut,  New  York,  !N"ew  Jersey,  and  in  part  Maryland ;  also  of 
some  individuals  from  other  representations." 

The  first  party  here  mentioned  by  Mr.  MARTIN  was  supposed 
to  include  Mr.  HAMILTON,  GOUVERNEUR  MORRIS,  and  some  others. 
The  second  party  was  supposed  to  include  the  delegates  from 
Virginia,  Pennsylvania,  Massachusetts,  and  some  other  of  the 
larger  States. 

Colonel  HUMPHREYS,  in  his  letter  to  General  WASHINGTON,  of 
the  20th  of  January,  1787,  describes  the  temper  of  a  number 
of  the  States  in  the  following  language  :  "  They  have  a  mortal 
reluctance  to  divest  themselves  of  the  smallest  attribute  of  inde 
pendent,  separate  sovereignties."  This  temper  showed  itself  in 
the  convention  in  the  speeches  of  the  delegates. 

Friday,  June  29,  1787. — Doctor  JOHNSON,  of  Connecticut, 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF    STATE    EIGHTS.  47 

said,  in  the  Federal  Convention :  "  The  controversy  must  be 
endless,  whilst  gentlemen  differ  in  the  grounds  of  their  argu 
ments  ;  those  on  one  side  considering  the  States  as  districts  of 
people  composing  one  political  society  ;  and  those  on  the  other 
considering  them  as  so  many  political  societies.  The  fact  is,  the 
States  do  exist  as  so  many  political  societies  ;  and  a  government 
is  to  ~be  formed  for  them  in  their  political  capacity r,  as  well  as 
for  the  individuals  composing  them.  Does  it  not  seem  to  fol 
low,  that,  if  the  States  as  such  are  to  exist,  they  must  be  armed 
with  some-  power  of  self-defence  ?  " 

Mr.  ELLSWORTH,  in  the  same  debate,  said :  "  Under  a  national 
Government  he  should  participate  in  the  national  security,  as 
remarked  by  Mr.  KING  *,  but  that  was  all.  What  he  wanted 
was  domestic  happiness.  The  national  Government  could  not 
descend  to  the  local  objects  on  which  this  depended.  It  could 
only  embrace  objects  of  a  general  nature.  He  turned  his  eyes, 
therefore,  for  the  preservation  of  his  rights,  to  the  State  Govern 
ments.  From  these  alone  he  could  derive  the  greatest  happi 
ness  he  expected  in  this  life.  His  happiness  depends  on  their 
existence  as  much  as  a  new-born  infant  on  its  mother  for  nour 
ishment." 

So  anxious  was  that  distinguished  statesman  to  preserve  the 
rights  of  the  States,  that  he  moved  in  the  Federal  Convention 
that  the  term  "  national "  should  be  stricken  out  of  the  Consti 
tution  ;  and  his  motion  was  passed  without  opposition,  and  the 
objectionable  term  was  stricken  out. 

He  and  others  preferred  the  term  "  Federal,"  because  it  de 
scribed  more  accurately  the  nature  of  the  Government  which 
they  wrere  forming.  The  term  "Federal  pertains  to  a  league 
or  compact,  and  is  derived  from  an  agreement  or  covenant  be 
tween  parties,  particularly  between  nations."  Hence  the  friends 
of  the  Constitution,  which,  was  a  compact  or  league  between  the 
States,  were  called  Federalists. 

In  a  letter  to  Governor  HUNTINGTON,  dated  New  London, 
September  26,  1787,  Mr.  ELLSWORTH  and  Mr.  SHERMAN  unite  in 
saying : 

"  Some  additional  powers  are  vested  in  Congress,  which  was 
the  principal  object  the  States  had  in  view  in  appointing  the 
Convention ;  those  powers  extend  only  to  matters  respecting 


48  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

the  common  interests  of  the  Union,  and  are  specially  defined,  so 
that  the  particular  States  retain  their  sovereignty  in  other  mat 
ters." 

Dr.  JOHNSON,  in  the  State  Convention  in  Hartford,  convened 
January  14,  1788,  to  ratify  the  Federal  Constitution,  said : 
u  The  Constitution  vests  in  the  general  Legislature  a  power  to 
make  laws  in  matters  of  national  concern  ;  to  appoint  judges  to 
decide  upon  those  laws ;  and  to  appoint  officers  to  carry  them 
into  execution.  This  excludes  the  idea  of  an  armed  force. 
The  power  which  is  to  enforce  these  laws  is  to  be  a  legal  power, 
vested  in  the  magistrates.  [Not  military.]  The  force  which  is 
to  be  employed,  is  the  energy  of  law ;  and  this  force  is  to 
be  employed  only  upon  individuals  who  fail  in  their  duty  to 
their  country.  This  is  the  glory  of  the  Constitution,  that  it  de 
pends  upon  the  mild  and  equal  energy  of  the  magistracy  for  the 
execution  of  the  laws."  [Not  upon  military  coercion.] 

OLIVER  ELLSWORTH,  Jan.  7,  1788,  in  the  State  Convention, 
Hartford,  1788,  said  :  "  We  see  how  necessary  for  the  Union  is 
a  coercive  principle.  No  man  pretends  to  the  contrary.  We 
all  see  and  feel  this  necessity.  The  only  question  is,  Shall  it  be 
a  coercion  of  law,  or  a  coercion  of  arms  ?  There  is  no  other 
possible  alternative.  Where  would  those,  who  oppose  a  coer 
cion  of  law,  come  out  ?  Where  will  they  end  ?  A  necessary 
consequence  of  their  principles  is  a  war  of  the  States,  one  against 
the  other.  I  am  for  coercion  by  law  ;  that  coercion  which  acts 
only  upon  delinquent  individuals.  The  Constitution  does  not 
attempt  to  coerce  sovereign  bodies — States  in  their  political  ca 
pacity.  No  coercion  is  applicable  to  such  bodies  but  that  of 
armed  force.  If  we  should  attempt  to  execute  the  laws  of  the 
Union  by  sending  an  armed  force  against  a  delinquent  State,  it 
would  involve  the  good  and  bad,  the  innocent  and  guilty,  in 
the  same  calamity.  But  this  legal  coercion  singles  out  the 
guilty  individual,  and  punishes  him  for  breaking  the  laws." 

Mr.  LAW,  in  the  same  Convention,  said  :  "  Some  suppose 
that  the  General  Government,  which  extends  over  the  whole, 
will  annihilate  the  State  Governments.  But  we  ought  to  con 
sider  that  this  General  Government  rests  on  the  State  Govern 
ments  for  its  support.  It  is  like  a  vast  and  beautiful  bridge 
built  upon  thirteen  strong  and  stately  pillars.  Now  the  rulers, 


\ 
THE    DOCTRINE   OF   STATE   EIGHTS.  49 

those  who  occupy  the  bridge,  cannot  be  so  beside  themselves  as 
to  knock  away  the  pillars  that  support  the  whole  fabric." 

The  Constitution  was  formed  on  the  idea  that  all  powers 
granted  to  the  General  Government  were  "  specially  defined71  or 
" enumerated"  and  that  all  powers,  not  "  specially  denned "  or 
"  not  enumerated,"  are  retained  by  each  of  the  States. 

In  the  formation  and  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  the  States 
were  the  only  agents.  The  State  Legislatures  appointed  the 
delegates  to  the  Convention.  While  there,  they  voted  by  States. 
Each  delegation  made  its  repbrt  to  the  Legislature  or  Governor 
of  the  States.  The  Convention  which  assembled  in  the  several 
States  to  ratify  or  reject  the  Constitution,  was  appointed  by 
the  people  of  the  several  States.  The  parties  to  the  "  Constitu 
tional  Compact "  were  the  States.  ROGER  SHERMAN  says  :  "  And 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  being  Federal,  and  insti 
tuted  by  a  number  of  sovereign  States  for  the  better  security  of 
their  rights,  and  the  advancement  of  their  interests,"  &c. — Let 
ter  to  John  Adams. 

The  motion  was  made  in  the  Convention  to  give  Congress 
power  to  negative  all  State  laws  contravening  the  articles  of 
Union,  and  thus  to  abridge  the  rights  of  the  several  States. 
This  motion  was  rejected  by  a  vote  of  seven  States  against 
three. 

Thursday r,  May  31,  1787. — In  the  plan  of  a  Constitution 
proposed  by  Governor  RANDOLPH,  and  generally  adopted  by  the 
Convention,  provision  was  made  "  authorizing  the  exertion  of 
the  force  of  the  other  States  against  a  delinquent  State."  The 
effect  of  this  would  be  to  abridge  the  rights  of  the  States. 

Mr.  MADISON  observed,  "  that  the  more  he  reflected  on  the 
use  of  force,  the  more  he  doubted  the  practicability,  the  justice, 
and  the  efficacy  of  it,  when  applied  to  a  people  collectively  and 
not  individually.  A  union  of  the  States,  containing  such  an 
ingredient,  seemed  to  provide  for  its  own  destruction.  The  use 
of  force  against  a  State  would  look  more  like  a  declaration  of 
war  than  an  infliction  of  punishment,  and  would  probably  be 
considered  by  the  party  attacked  as  a  dissolution  of  all  previous 
compacts  by  which  it  might  be  bound.  He  hoped  such  a  sys 
tem  might  be  framed  as  would  render  this  resource  unnecessary, 


50  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

and  moved  that  the  clause  be  postponed.  This  motion  was 
agreed  to,  nem.  con" — Madison  Papers,  p.  761. 

ALEXANDER  HAMILTON  used  the  following  language  on  the 
same  subject.  After  referring  to  the  case  of  Shay's  rebellion, 
in  which  military  force  could  be  properly  employed,  and  for 
which  "  Massachusetts  was  making  provision,"  by  State  author 
ity,  he  adds  :  "  But  how  can  this  force  be  exerted  on  the  States 
collectively  ?  (against  State  authority.)  It  is  impossible.  It 
amounts  to  a  declaration  of  war  between  the  parties.  Foreign 
powers  also  will  not  be  idle  spectators.  They  will  interpose ; 
the  confusion  will  increase  ;  and  a  dissolution  of  the  Union  will 
ensue." — Idem,  p.  881. 

Thus  it  appears  that  no  State  can  constitutionally  be  coerced 
by  the  other  States  by  force  of  arms. 

In  the  Convention,  so  determined  were  the  advocates  of  State 
rights  not  to  give  up  certain  of  these  to  the  General  Government, 
that  the  Convention  came  to  a  dead  stand,  and  was  in  danger  of 
failing  entirely  to  accomplish  the  object  for  which  they  assem 
bled.  CHARLES  PINCKNEY  declared,  that  for  nearly  six  weeks 
the  small  States  pertinaciously  struggled  to  obtain  equal  power 
in  both  branches. 

The  term  "  United  States  "  was  in  constant  use  when  the 
Constitution  was  framed,  with  a  fixed  and  definite  meaning  in 
the  minds  of  men,  namely,  the  same  as  in  the  Articles  of  Con 
federation.  That  document  is  described  as  "  Articles  of  Con 
federation,  and  perpetual  union  between  the  States  of  New 
Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  &c.  Article  I.  The 
style  of  this  Confederacy  shall  be,  The  United  States  of 
America" 

Now  it  is  evident  that  the  term  "  United  States,"  in  the 
Constitution,  means  the  same  that  it  does  in  the  Articles  of 
Confederation,  and  is  equivalent  to  New  Hampshire,  Massa 
chusetts,  &c.,  united,  or  the  States  united.  They  formed  a 
union  by  a  compact  between  themselves.  Article  "VII.  "  The  rat 
ification  of  the  conventions  of  nine  States  shall  be  sufficient  for 
the  establishment  of  this  Constitution  between  the  States  so  rati 
fying  the  same."  Here  the  word  is  between,  not  over.  The 
Constitution  is  a  compact  between  the  States.  "  "We  the  people 
of  the  United  States,"  evidently  must  mean  the  same  as  we  the 


THE    DOCTRINE   OF    STATE   EIGHTS.  51 

people  of  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  &c.,  taken  severally, 
and  not  collectively  •  that  is,  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  and 
the  people  of  Massachusetts,  &c.  The  people  who  voted  for  the 
Constitution  by  States  must  have  understood  the  phrase  as  mean 
ing  the  same  in  the  Constitution  that  it  does  in  the  Articles  of 
Confederation,  namely,  the  people  of  the  several  States,  and  not 
the  people  of  America,  taken  collectively  as  one  people.  It  was 
a  majority  of  the  people  of  each  State  acting  by  itself  that 
adopted  the  Constitution,  and  not  a  majority  of  the  people  of 
all  the  States  taken  collectively. 

Indeed,  the  people  of  all  the  States  have  never  acted  to 
gether  as  one  whole.  Even  in  the  election  of  President,  the 
people  vote  by  separate  States,  not  for  a  President,  but  for 
State  electors.  A  majority  of  the  people  of  the  whole  country 
do  not  appoint  electors,  but  a  majority  of  each  separate  State. 
If  the  electors  fail  to  elect  a  President,  then  the  States  as  States 
in  Congress  assembled  appoint  the  President ;  Rhode  Island 
having  one  vote  and  New  York  no  more.  And  if  the  House 
of  Representatives  fail  of  making  a  choice,  the  Senate,  ap 
pointed  by  the  several  States,  shall  elect  a  Yice-President,  who 
shall  act  as  President  of  the  States. 

The  Southern  States  became  dissatisfied  with  Mr.  ADAMS 
and  his  measures,  and  a  portion  of  them  looked  to  the  doctrines 
of  State  rights  for  relief. 

To  JOHN  TAYLOR  of  Virginia,  Mr.  JEFFERSON  addressed  a 
letter,  June,  1798.  In  it  he  says :  "  It  is  true  that  we  are  com 
pletely  under  the  saddle  of  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut,  and 
they  ride  us  very  hard,  cruelly  insulting  our  feelings,  as  well  as 
exhausting  our  strength  and  subsistence.  Their  natural  friends, 
the  three  other  Eastern  States,  join  them  from  a  sort  of  family 
pride,  and  they  have  the  art  to  divide  certain  other  parts  of  the 
Union,  so  as  to  make  use  of  them  to  govern  the  whole." 

"If  we  rid  ourselves  of  the  present  rulers  of  Massachusetts 
and  Connecticut,  we  break  the  Union  ;  will  the  work  stop  there  ? 
Suppose  the  New  England  States  alone  cut  off,  will  our  nature 
be  changed?  Are  there  not  men  to  the  South  with  all  the 
passions  of  men?  Immediately  we  shall  see  a  Pennsylvania 
and  Yirginia  party  arise  in  the  residuary  Confederacy,  and  the 
public  mind  will  be  distracted  with  the  same  party  spirit." 


52  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

In  another  place  lie  says  :  "  Mr.  NEW  showed  me  your  letter 
on  the  subject  of  the  protest,  which  gives  me  an  opportunity  of 
observing  what  you  said  as  to  the  effect  with  you  of  public  pro 
ceedings,  and  that  it  is  not  unwise  now  to  estimate  the  sepa 
rate  map  of  Virginia  and  North  Carolina,  with  a  view  to  their 
separate  existence."  "  Seeing  we  must  have  somebody  to 
quarrel  with,  I  had  rather  keep  our  New  England  associates 
for  that  purpose,  than  to  see  our  bickerings  transferred  to  others. 
They  are  circumstanced  within  such  narrow  limits,  and  their 
population  so  full,  that  their  numbers  will  soon  be  in  the  minor 
ity  ;  and  they  are  marked,  like  the  Jews,  with  such  perversity 
of  character,  as  to  constitute,  from  that  circumstance,  the  natural 
division  of  our  parties." 

"  During  the  Administration  of  Mr.  ADAMS,  Virginia  was 
almost  in  open  revolt  against  the  national  authority,  merely 
because  a  Yankee,  and  not  a  Virginian,  was  President." — 'Life 
of  G.  Morris,  vol.  iii.,  p.  196. 

JOHN  ADAMS,  when  President,  wrote  as  follows :  "  I  have 
found  this  Congress  like  the  last.  When  we  first  came  together, 
I  found  a  strong  jealousy  of  us  of  New  England,  and  of  Mas 
sachusetts  in  particular." — Life  and  Times  of  John  Adams, 
vol.  i.,  p.  176. 

"  You  inquire  why  so  young  a  man  as  Mr.  JEFFERSON  was 
placed  at  the  head  of  the  committee  for  preparing  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence  ;  I  answer,  it  was  the  Frankfort  advice  to 
place  Virginia  at  the  head  of  every  thing." — Life  and  Times  of 
John  Adams,  vol.  ii.,  p.  513. 

REMARKS. 

1.  The  sectional  feeling,  which  existed  during  General 
WASHINGTON'S  Administration,  became  intensified,  especially 
in  the  South,  during  the  Administration  of  Mr.  ADAMS  ;  he  be 
ing  a  Northern  man,  and  sustained  chiefly  by  Northern  men, 
and  by  several  of  the  Northern  States.  In  the  view  of  the 
party  opposed  to  him,  his  policy  savored  too  much  of  mon 
archy,  and  tended  to  exalt  and  extend  the  powers  of  the 
General  Government  towards  a  conformity  to  the  English 
government,  to  the  disparagement  of  the  reserved  rights  of  the 


REMARKS.  53 

States.  The  Yirginia  and  Kentucky  Resolutions  were  pro 
fessedly  brought  forward  in  order  to  restrain  that  policy,  and 
to  preserve  to  the  States  their  Constitutional  relations  to  the 
Federal  Government.  But  sectional  or  party  feeling  had  much 
to  do  in  this  matter. 

It  is  somewhat  remarkable,  that  Yirginia  was,  in  the  Con 
stitutional  Convention,  opposed  to  reserving  large  powers  to  the 
several  States,  on  some  important  points,  and  yet  was  the  first 
to  place  herself  on  her  reserved  powers,  and,  as  some  would 
say,  to  magnify  those  powers.  Thus  Virginia  voted  in  favor 
of  giving  the  Federal  Legislature  power  to  negative  State  laws 
contravening  the  articles  of  union,  and  voted  against  giving 
equal  rights  to  the  States  in  the  Senate.  PATRICK  HENRY,  in 
the  Yirginia  Convention,  tauntingly  said  :  "  Why  are  such  ex 
tensive  powers  given  to  the  Senate  ?  Because  the  little  States 
gained  their  point."  The  "•  little  States  "  did,  indeed,  gain  their 
point  as  against  the  large  States,  but  they  also  gained  their 
point  for  each  of  the  large  States  as  against  the  popular  vote  of 
the  whole  Union.  In  practice,  Yirginia  has  enjoyed  this  ad 
vantage. 

2.  Some  of  the  Northern  States,  while  they  had  a  prevailing 
influence  during  the  presidency  of  General  WASHINGTON   and 
of  Mr.  ADAMS,  were  accused  of  endeavoring  to   enlarge  the 
powers  of  the  General  Government ;  and  yet  those  same  States, 
when  that  influence  was  impaired  during  the  Administration 
of  Mr.  JEFFEESON  and  of  Mr.  MADISON,  placed  themselves  on 
the  reserved  rights  of  the  States,  in  their  opposition  to  the  Gen 
eral  Government.     This  subject  will  be  resumed  in  statements 
concerning  Mr.  MADISON'S  Administration. 

3.  The  States  were  the  only  parties  to  the  "  Constitutional 
Compact."     This  phrase,  equivalent  to  the  word  Constitution, 
and  descriptive  of  it,  is  used  in  the  Report  of  the  Hartford  Con 
vention,  and  by  eminent  statesmen. 

4.  The  Constitution  contains  only  delegated  powers.     "  The 
State  Governments  may  be  regarded  as  constituent  and  essen 
tial  parties  of  the  Federal  Government,  while  the  latter  is  in  no 
wise  essential  to  the  operation  of  the  former." — MADISON,  No. 
45  of  The  Federalist.    The  "  constituent,"  by  the  force  or  mean 
ing  of  the  term,  is  superior  to  the  delegate. 


CHAPTER  V. 


XTR.  JEFFERSON'S  ADMINISTRATION. 


MARCH  4,  1801— MARCH  4,  1809. 

MR.  JEFFERSON  was  friendly  to  France,  rather  than  to  Eng 
land  ;  was  in  favor  of  a  strict  construction  of  the  Constitution, 
by  which  the  rights  of  the  several  States,  and  of  the  people  of 
those  States,  would  be  protected  against  any  usurpations  of  the 
General  Government.  He  received  73  electoral  votes  for  the 
presidency,  nearly  all  the  Southern  States  voting  for  him.  Mr. 
BURR  received  the  same  number  of  votes. 

Mr.  ADAMS  received  65  votes ;  his  strength  lying  chiefly  in 
the  Northern  States. 

Mr.  JEFFERSON  and  Mr.  BURR  received  an  equal  number  of 
votes  ;  it  remained  for  the  House  of  Representatives,  voting  by 
States,  to  determine  the  choice. 

A  portion  of  the  federal  party,  which  had  cast  its  electoral 
vote  for  JOHN  ADAMS  and  CHARLES  C.  PINCKNEY,  had  resolved 
that  States  represented  by  that  party  should  throw  their  votes 
for  AARON  BURR,  himself  a  democrat,  instead  of  JEFFERSON, 
whom  the  democrats  wished  to  elect  President.  On  the  17th 
February,  1801,  after  balloting  in  the  House  36  times,  THOMAS 
JEFFERSON  was  elected  President,  Connecticut,  Massachusetts , 
New  Hampshire,  and  Rhode,  Island  voting  to  the  last  for 
AARON  BURR. 

Commercial  Advertiser,  New  York,  Feb.  23,  1801.— "  Our 
communications  from  the  City  of  "Washington  are  as  late  as 
Thursday,  half-past  3  o'clock,  A.  M.  At  that  time  the  ballot- 


SPIRIT   OF   THE   TIMES.  55 

ing  had  been  postponed,  an  hour  at  a  time ;  when  the  hour 
expires  and  the  members  are  called  to  proceed  again,  it  is 
ludicrous  to  see  some  of  them  rushing  with  anxiety  from  the 
committee  rooms,  with  their  night  caps  on.  Numbers  of  them 
are  provided  with  pillows  and  blankets  ;  and  the  contest  would 
seem  to  be  who  has  the  most  strength  of  constitution,  or  who 
is  most  able  to  bear  fatigue.  Many  of  them  lie  down  in  their 
places,  resolving  (at  least  to  sleep,  if  not)  to  die  at  their  posts." 


SPIRIT   OF   THE   TIMES. 
Washington  Federalist,  February  12,  1801. 

"  Unworthy  will  he  be,  and  consecrated  his  name  to  infamy, 
who,  with  a  view  to  the  permanency  of  our  political  system, 
has  hitherto  strenuously  opposed  the  exaltation  of  Mr.  JEFFERSON 
to  the  Presidential  chair,  shall  now,  meanly  and  inconsistently, 
lend  his  aid  to  promote  it.  Such  conduct  will  be  dishonorable 
in  the  extreme.  Such  conduct,  therefore,  cannot  possibly  char 
acterize  the  Federal  party.  *  *  * 

"  But,  say  the  bold  and  impetuous  partisans  of  Mr.  JEFFER 
SON,  and  that,  too,  in  the  teeth  of  the  assembled  Congress  of 
America,  Dare  to  designate  any  officer  whatever,  even  tempo 
rarily  to  administer  the  government,  in  the  want  of  the  non- 
agreement,  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  we 
will  march  and  dethrone  him  as  a  usurper.  Dare,  in  fact,  to 
exercise  the  right  of  opinion,  and  place  in  the  Presidential  chair 
any  other  than  the  sage  of  Monticello,  and  ten  thousand  Repub 
lican  swords  will  leap  from  their  scabbards  in  defence  of  the 
violated  rights  of  the  people.  *  *  * 

"  Are  they,  then,  ripe  for  civil  war,  and  ready  to  embrue 
their  hands  in  kindred  blood  ? 

"  If  the  tumultuous  meetings  of  a  set  of  factious  foreigners 
in  Pennsylvania,  and  a  few  fighting  bacchanals  in  Virginia, 
mean  the  people,  and  are  to  dictate  to  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  whom  to  elect  as  President ;  if  the  constitutional 
rights  of  this  body  are  so  soon  to  become  the  prey  of  anarchy 
and  faction  ;  if  we  are  already  arrived  at  that  disastrous  period 
in  the  life  of  nations,  when  '  liberty  consists  in  no  longer  rever 
encing  either  the  laws  or  the  authority  ; '  if,  in  short,  the  scenes 


56  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

that  sadden  the  history  of  the  elective  monarchies  of  Europe  are 
BO  soon  to  be  reacted  in  America,  it  would  be  prudent  at  once 
to  prepare  for  the  contest :  the  woful  experiment,  if  tried  at  all, 
could  never  be  tried  at  a  more. favorable  conjuncture. 

"  With  the  militia  of  Massachusetts,  consisting  of  seventy 
thousand,  (regulars  let  us  call  them,)  in  arms  ;  with  those  of  New 
Hampshire,  united  almost  to  a  man  ;  with  half  the  number  of 
the  citizens  of  the  other  States,  ranged  under  the  Federal  ban 
ner  in  support  of  the  Constitution,  what  could  Pennsylvania  do, 
aided  by  Virginia  ?  the  militia  of  the  latter,  untrained  and  far 
cically  performing  the  manual  exercise  with  cornstalks  instead 
of  muskets,  burdened  besides  with  a  formidable  internal  foe, 
whose  disposition  has  been  shown  in  not  very  agreeable  colors, 
a  foe,  too,  in  contest  against  whom,  Mr.  JEFFERSON  declares,  the 
Almighty  has  no  attribute  which  could  induce  him  to  take  a 
part ;  what,  may  it  be  asked,  would  be  the  issue  of  the  strug 
gle  ?  Let  these  madmen  reflect  on  these  things.  Let  them  for 
bear  their  menaces.  Let  them  respect  the  decision  of  the  con 
stituted  authorities." 

In  the  Connecticut  Courant,  Hartford,  September  22,  1800, 
a  writer,  signing  himself  BURLEIGH,  after  speaking  of  the  evils 
of  slavery,  uses  the  following  language  : 

"  To  avoid  sharing  in  these  calamities,  and,  perhaps,  with 
the  hope  of  saving  the  Government,  the  Northern  States  will 
probably  be  disposed  to  separate  the  Union.  This,  though  an 
evil  of  mighty  magnitude,  is  less,  far  less,  than  anarchy  or  sla 
very.  Should  such  an  event  take  place,  where  the  border  States 
will  be  is  not  for  me  to  say.  Perhaps  the  Potomac,  the  Dela 
ware,  or  the  Hudson,  like  the  Rhine,  may  part  rival  hostile  na 
tions,  and  the  shores  of  one  of  them  be  perpetually  crimsoned 
with  the  blood  of  the  inhabitants." 

Hoston  Gazette,  December  24,  1801 :  "  IT  WAS  A  GOOD  THING, 
in  the  District  Court  of  Connecticut,  to  let  Mr.  JEFFERSON  know, 
that  when  he  attempted  to  restore  ~by  his  order  to  his  good 
friends  the  French,  the  prize-money  of  a  French  schooner,  which 
was  captured  and  legally  condemned  as  a  lawful  prize  in  the 
court,  that  he  was  feeling  power  and  forgetting  right.  Mr. 
JEFFERSON  has  so  long  been  accustomed  to  govern  slaves,  that 
he  hardly  knows  how  to  act  in  the  government  of  freemen. 


SPIRIT   OF   THE   TIMES.  57 

But,  however  implicitly  his  commands  in  a  land  of  slavery  may- 
have  been  obeyed,  he  must  be  careful  how  he  orders  without 
authority  in  New  England,  as  he  will  surely  get  himself  af 
fronted." 

From  the  Boston  Gazette,  December  28,  1801,  and  credited 
to  the  American  Minerva :  "  New  England  people  turned  aris 
tocrats  !  say  the  Southern  gentlemen.  This  is  very  odd.  Let 
us  examine  the  fact,  and  compare  New  England  aristocracy 
with  Southern  democracy.  An  Eastern  aristocrat  is  a  New 
England  farmer.  Nine  out  of  ten  of  all  these  people  are  men 
of  small  landed  estates,  consisting  of  from  fifty  to  two  hundred 
acres  of  land,  and  worth  one  thousand  to  three  thousand  dollars. 
There  is  not  one  in  twenty  of  them  that  ever  owned  a  slave ; 
and  those  who  have  them  are  getting  rid  of  them  as  fast  as  they 
can,  without  injury  to  the  slaves.  The  farmer  himself,  his  wife, 
his  sons  and  daughters,  all  labor  in  person  on  the  farm  or  at 
the  spinning-wheel.  A  farmer  in  New  England  who  does  not 
labor  in  person,  is  no  more  to  be  found  than  a  planter  in  Vir 
ginia  or  Carolina  who  does.  Jf  they  have  occasion  to  hire  la 
boring  men,  they  associate  with  them  and  eat  at  the  same  table. 
In  the  whole  village  there  is  little  or  no  distinction  of  rank  ;  the 
farmers  and  mechanics,  the  justice  of  the  peace,  and  the  black 
smith,  all  associate  on  equal  terms.  There  is  no  such  thing  as 
a  farmer's  commanding  his  workmen  ;  he  treats  them  all  as  his 
equals.  These  people  are  generally  very  civil  and  obliging ; 
they  make  bows  to  each  other,  and  teach  their  children  to  do 
the  same.  This  is  New  England  aristocracy. 

"  Virginia  democracy  is  a  very  different  thing.  A  democrat, 
in  the  Southern  States,  is  a  planter  or  other  person  who  owns  a 
large  number  of  slaves — who  is  above  labor  himself,  and  not 
only  so,  but  is  above  the  drudgery  of  overseeing  his  own  busi 
ness.  He  commits  it  to  a  steward  and  a  negro  driver.  He  es 
tablishes  all  the  ranks  of  the  feudal  system  in  his  own  family. 
The  planter  is  king  or  lord  paramount ;  his  children  are  nobles  ; 
the  tutor,  the  steward,  and  clerk,  are  the  commons ;  and  the 
laboring  people  and  the  blacks  are  the  vassals.  Yet  this  planter 
is  a  mighty  democrat,  a  warm  stickler  for  the  rights  of  man,  for 
liberty,  and,  what  is  more,  equality.  This  little  domestic  mon 
arch  writes  and  spouts  incessantly  about  the  funding  system, 


58  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

and  the  danger  of  power.  He  will  not  labor — not  he  ;  this  is 
the  business  of  slaves.  He  will  not  associate  with  the  laboring 
people  ;  he  will  not  eat  at  the  same  table.  His  sons  must  not 
labor;  this  would  disgrace  them.  They  are  seen  at  a  tavern 
from  morning  to  night,  sawing  a  fiddle  or  playing  at  billiards. 

"  A  New  England  Aristocrat,  on  Sunday,  puts  saddle  and 
pillion  on  a  team  horse,  takes  his  wife  behind  him  and  his  child 
on  a  pillow  before  him,  and  rides  to  church  ;  and  when  he  gets 
home,  he  reads  a  sermon,  or  a  chapter  in  the  Bible,  and  teaches 
his  children  some  catechism. 

"  The  Southern  Democrat,  on  Sunday,  gets  into  his  coach,  if 
he  has  it,  or  can  borrow  one,  and,  accompanied  by  two  or  three 
dirty,  ragged,  half-naked  slaves,  rides  to  some  friends  or  to  some 
amusement.  It  is  idle  to  deny  these  things  ;  thousands  of  wit 
nesses  can  attest  them.  Let  the  truth,  then,  be  acknowledged. 
Let  the  charge  of  Aristocracy  fall  where  it  ought.  The  Northern 
people  are  the  most  Republican  in  the  universe  ;  equality  reigns 
among  them  in  reality  ;  but  they  expect  law  and  order,  and 
when  they  have  a  government  they  wish  to  keep  it." 

RESTRICTIONS   UPON   COMMERCE. 

In  opposition  to  British  encroachments,  a  memorial  was  pre 
sented  to  Congress  by  the  Boston  merchants,  dated  January  20, 
1806,  urging  that  "  such  measures  should  be  promptly  adopted 
as  wTill  tend  to  disembarrass  our  commerce,  assert  our  rights, 
and  support  the  dignity  of  the  United  States."  Similar  memo 
rials  were  presented,  about  the  same  time,  by  the  merchants  of 
New  York  and  of  Philadelphia. 

The  "  Berlin  Decree,"  by  Napoleon,  was  declared  November 
1,  1806.  The  "  British  Orders  in  Council  "  were  declared  No 
vember  11,  1807.  The  "  Milan  Decree,"  by  Napoleon,  was  de 
clared  December  17,  1807. 

To  meet  these  decrees  and  orders  in  council,  ruinous  as  they 
were  to  American  commerce,  the  embargo  was  laid  on  the  23d 
of  December,  1807. 

"  It  wras  generally  believed,  at  the  North,  that  the  embargo 
was  the  result  of  a  combination  between  Southern  and  Western 
States,  to  ruin  the  Eastern."  In  a  memorial  from  the  town  of 


THE   PURCHASE   OF   LOUISIANA.  59 

Boston  to  the  legislature  of  Massachusetts,  January  25,  1809, 
requesting  the  "  interposition  "  of  that  body  to  relieve  the  citi 
zens  from  their  "  grievances,"  is  the  following  :  "  Our  hope  and 
consolation  rest  with,  the  Legislature  of  our  State,  to  whom  it  is 
competent  to  devise  means  of  relief  against  the  unconstitutional 
measures  of  the  General  Government  •  that  your  power  is  ade 
quate  to  this  object,  is  evident  from  the  organization  of  the 
Confederacy"  Other  towns  in  Massachusetts  expressed  the 
same  sentiments  to  the  Legislature  in  more  decided  terms,  point 
ing  to  resistance  to  the  Federal  Government. 

"  If  petitions  do  not  produce  a  relaxation  or  removal  of  the 
embargo,  the  people  ought  immediately  to  assume  a  higher 
tone.  The  Government  of  Massachusetts  has  also  a  duty  to- 
perform.  The  State  is  still  sovereign  and  independent" — Boston 
Centinel,  September  10,  1808. 

In  the  same  spirit  Northern  statesmen  spoke :  "  To  my 
mind  the  present  crisis  excites  the  most  serious  apprehensions. 
A  storm  seems  to  he  gathering ',  which  portends  not  a  tempest  on 
the  ocean,  but  domestic  convulsions.  I  feel  myself  bound  in 
conscience  to  declare,  lest  the  blood  of  those  who  should  fall  in 
executing  this  measure  (enforcing  the  embargo)  may  lie  on  my 
head,  that  I  consider  this  to  be  an  act  which  directs  a  mortal 
blow  at  the  liberties  of  my  country — an  act  containing  uncon 
stitutional  provisions,  to  which  the  people  are  not  hound  to  suh- 
mit,  and  to  which,  in  my  opinion,  they  will  not  submit." — 
Speech  of  MR.  HILLHOUSE,  of  Connecticut,  in  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States,  January,  1809. 

The  embargo  was  repealed  March  1,  1809. 

THE   PURCHASE   OF   LOUISIANA. 

To  the  proposal  of  Mr.  JEFFERSON  to  purchase  Louisiana  the 
Eastern  States  were  strongly  opposed,  though  the  great  impor 
tance  of  preserving  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  was 
acknowledged.  To  prevent  the  purchase,  ridicule,  sarcasm 
without  mercy,  menace  of  the  separation  of  the  States,  as  well 
as  argument,  were  employed  by  their  representatives  in  Con 
gress,  and  by  the  editors  of  newspapers. 

The  ground  of  this  violent  opposition  wras  the  apprehension 
that  the  Southern  and  Western  States  would,  bv  the  admission 


60  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

of  Louisiana,  acquire  an  undue  influence  in  the  General  Govern 
ment.  In  the  debate  upon  the  admission  of  Louisiana,  Mr. 
QUINCY,  of  Massachusetts,  used  the  following  language  in  Con 
gress,  January  15,  1811  :  "  If  this  bill  passes,  it  is  my  deliberate 
opinion  "  (which  he  committed  to  writing  to  prevent  misappre 
hension)  "  that  it  is  virtually  a  dissolution  of  the  Union  •  that 
it  will  free  the  States  from  their  moral  obligation ;  and,  as  it 
will  be  the  right  of  all,  so  it  will  be  the  duty  of  some  to  prepare, 
for  separation,  amicably  if  they  can,  VIOLENTLY  IF  THEY  MUST." 
These  were  the  sentiments  of  a  large  number  in  New  England 
at  that  time.  Most  of  them  lived  to  adopt  more  patriotic  views, 
when  they  saw  the  relation  and  value  of  Louisiana  to  the  whole 
country.  A  committee  of  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts, 
1813,  reported  the  following  : 

"Resolved^  that  it  is  the  interest  and  duty  of  the  people  of 
Massachusetts  to  oppose  the  admission  of  such  States  (Louisiana) 
into  the  Union,  as  a  measure  tending  to  dissolve  the  Confed 
eracy." 

REMARKS. 

1.  By  the  election  of  Mr.  JEFFERSON,  the  Eastern  States  had 
lost  much  of  their  influence  in  the  General  Government.     They 
accused  him  of  being  unfriendly  to  the  interests  of  commerce, 
and  of  not  taking  energetic  measures  for  its  protection  against 
the  encroachments  of  England  and  France,  and  of  laying  the 
embargo  in  disregard  of  their  interests. 

2.  Several  of  the  Eastern  States  made  a  great  mistake  in 
voting  for  AAEON  BURR  in  opposition  to  Mr.  JEFFERSON,  on  sec 
tional  grounds,  when  the  election  came  into  the  House  of  Rep 
resentatives.     They  had  the  constitutional  right  to  do  so  ;  but 
it  was  not  to  their  honor  to  endeavor  to  thwart  the  wishes  of 
the  people  of  the  several  States,  who  had  voted  for  electors  who 
were  in  favor  of  Mr.  JEFFERSON  for  President,  and  of  Mr.  BURR 
for  Yice-President.     They  voted  for  Mr.  BURR,  who  proved  to 
be  a  bad  man,  on  sectional  grounds. 

3.  The  opposition  to  the  purchase  of  Louisiana  was  largely 
sectional,  springing  as  it  did  from  the  apprehension  that  the  in 
troduction  of  new  States  made  from  it  would  still  further  dimin- 


CHAPTER  VI. 

MR.  MADISON'S  ADMINISTRATION. 

MARCH  4,  1809— MARCH  4,  1817. 

MR.  MADISON  had  acted  with  the  North  in  framing  the  Con 
stitution  ;  but  he  had  acted  with  the  South  generally  in  the  in 
terpretation  of  its  powers. 

The  foreign  policy  adopted  by  Mr.  JEFFERSON  in  the  admin 
istration  of  the  Government,  was  continued  by  MADISON,  inju 
rious  though  it  was  to  the  interests  of  the  commercial  States. 
The  commerce  of  the  country  was  crushed  between  the  upper 
and  the  nether  millstones  of  the  British  orders  in  council,  and 
the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees.  By  the  one,  American  ships 
were  excluded  from  Great  Britain  ;  and  by  the  other,  from 
France,  to  the  ruin  of  our  commerce.  Mr.  MADISON,  like  Mr. 
JEFFERSON,  was  accused  of  favoring  France  rather  than  Eng 
land,  and  thus  of  increasing  the  evil,  first  by  a  commercial  con 
test  with  the  latter  nation,  by  a  non-intercourse  act,  and  by  an 
embargo  of  ninety  days,  in  the  way  of  reprisal,  and  then  by  the 
declaration  of  war. 

To  these  measures  the  Northern  States,  and  especially  New 
England,  were  violently  opposed.  And  their  opposition  was 
manifested  in  newspapers,  speeches,  and  conventions,  in  bitter 
arid  determined  language.  During  the  embargo,  their  ships 
were  rotting  at  the  wharves  or  on  the  stocks.  Their  seamen 
were  idle,  and  restless,  and  unhappy.  Grass  grew  in  the  streets 
of  cities  which  had  been  marts  of  commerce.  Bankruptcy  was 
felt  or  feared.  Their  harbors  were  no  longer  whitened  by  the 


62  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

sails  of  successful  commercial  adventure.     Thousands  could  say, 
"  My  occupation  is  gone." 

The  Southern  States,  on  the  other  hand,  generally  sustained 
these  anti-commercial  measures,  and  thus  provoked  the  resent 
ment  of  the  North,  and  the  fiercest  denunciations.  As  a  speci 
men  of  the  feelings  that  prevailed,  read  the  following,  originally 
published  in  the  Connecticut  Journal,  1812,  from  an  article  en 
titled,  " Slave  Representation"  by  BOREAS : 

"  '  Awake !  O  spirit  of  the  North.' 

"  The  article  authorizing  the  Southern  negroes  to  be  repre 
sented  in  Congress  is  the  rotten  part  of  the  Constitution,  and 
must  ~be  amputated.  Since  the  commencement  of  the  Govern 
ment,  its  whole  undivided  influence  Las  been  only  putrefactive 
and  deadly,  although  before  the  fatal  change  of  men  and  meas 
ures  on  the  fourth  of  March,  1801,  its  effects  were  not  percepti 
bly  felt  on  the  sounder  members  of  the  body  politic.  That 
change  was  wholly  effected  by  slave  representation.  The  slave 
electoral  votes  first  brought  Mr.  JEFFERSON  into  the  Presidency  ; 
and  the  slave  votes  in  Congress  have  turned  the  majority  in 
favor  of  many  of  the  worst  measures  which  the  Virginia  faction 
have  dared  to  bring  forward.  *  *  * 

"  If  this  stain  upon  the  face  of  the  Constitution,  this  impress 
of  mischief  and  dishonor,  is  ever  to  be  blotted  out,  it  must  be 
done  at  a  time  when  the  NORTH,  roused  by  repeated  injuries, 
and  provoked  by  galling  oppression,  shall  appeal  directly  to 
Tier  own  strength,  and  to  t}\Q  fears  and  weakness  of  the  COUNTRY 

OF  SLAVES. 

"  At  a  time  when  these  injuries  are  deeply  felt,  and  these  op 
pressions  are  boldly  resisted,  would  we  call  upon  all  the  men  of 
the  North  to  unite  as  one  man,  and  that  a  strong  man,  armed 
to  take  a  solemn  view  of  the  magnitude  and  injustice  of  the 
grievance,  and  then  at  every  hazard  to  apply  the  needed  rem 
edy.  *  *  * 

"  On  this  subject,  all  the  North  have  a  common  interest.  To 
the  MEN  OF  THE  NORTH  we  would  boldly  and  directly  make  the 
solemn  appeal :  "Will  you  suffer  the  slave  country  to  triumph 
any  longer  in  this  palpable  fraud  ?  Will  you  still  look  coolly  on 

r\-r\  /I     TTTT  4-ni  /-\r«n     4-\  \  T  r<     -rVvnl      rvl  /~wf     s\v\       Tri£*      ~r\c\  f\*f\      r\T      "fl^^i       I     .r\*n  o4"  i  f~n  'f  1  r\T\        4"  M  i  C5 


SECTIONAL    OPPOSITION   TO   THE   WAR   OF    1812.  63 

deep  stigma  on  tlie  national  honor  ?  If  you  will,  go,  and  for 
twelve  long,  iceary  years  see  the  commerce  of  the  nation  bound, 
her  agriculture  blasted,  her  coffers  lavished,  and  her  glory  tram 
pled  in  the  dust,  by  the  very  man  whom  Southern  slaves  have 
lifted  into  office." 

SECTIONAL   OPPOSITION   TO  THE  WAR   OF   1812. 

The  Northern  States,  having  adopted  the  Federal  Constitu 
tion  mainly  for  promoting  their  commercial  interests,  were  very 
indignant  at  the  passage  of  the  embargo  act  of  1807,  on  recon> 
mendation  of  Mr.  JEFFERSON  ;  and  threats  were  uttered,  first  in 
undertones  and  then  loudly,  that  they  would  secede — at  least  a 
portion  of  them — from  the  Union,  and  form  a  new  confederacy. 
On  the  first  of  March,  1809,  just  before  the  accession  of  Mr. 
MADISON,  the  embargo  act  was  repealed,  "  to  appease  the  Is  ew 
England  States." 

War  was  declared  against  Great  Britain,  in  due  form,  on 
the  18th  of  June,  1812,  by  a  vote  of  72  to  49  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  and  19  to  13  in  the  Senate.  To  this  war  there 
was  a  strong  opposition  manifested  in  the  Eastern  States,  in  the 
pulpit,  the  press,  in  public  speeches,  and  private  conversation. 
Ministers  of  the  Gospel  called  it  an  "  unholy  war,"  an  "  un 
righteous  war."  At  the  time  when  our  armies  were  invading 
Canada,  some  of  them  prayed  "  that  all  invading  armies  might 
be  cut  off,"  and  "  that  they  who  take  the  sword  might  perish 
by  the  sword."  The  Rev.  Mr.  GARDINER,  in  a  sermon  preached 
July  23,  1812,  in  Boston,  uses  the  following  language :  "  The 
Union  has  long  since  been  dissolved,  and  it  is  full  time  that  this 
part  of  the  United  States  should  take  care  of  itself."  Rev.  Dr. 
PARISH,  in  Byfield,  Mass.,  delivered  a  sermon  April  7,  1814,  in 
which  he  uses  the  following  language  :  "  The  Israelites  became 
weary  of  yielding  the  fruit  of  their  labor  to  pamper  tyrants. 
-They  left  their  political  woes.  They  separated.  Where  is  our 
Moses  f  Where  is  the  rod  of  his  miracles  ?  Where  is  our  Aa 
ron  ?  Alas  !  no  voice  from  the  burning  bush  has  directed  him 
here."  These  are  only  specimens, 
withholdour  money,  and  make  a  separate  peace  withEnglanoT.771 


64  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

Boston  Advertiser.  "  That  there  will  be  a  revolution,  if  the 
war  continues,  no  one  can  doubt  who  is  acquainted  with  human 
nature,  and  is  accustomed  to  study  cause  and  effect.  The  East 
ern  States  are  marching  steadily  and  straightforward  up  to  the 
object." — Federal  Republican.  These  are  specimens. 

"  We  call  upon  our  State  Legislature  to  protect  us  in  the 
enjoyment  of  those  privileges,  to  assert  which  our  fathers  died, 
and  to  defend  which  we  profess  ourselves  ready  to  resist  unto 
blood" — Memorial  of  the  citizens  of  Neivburyport,  Mass.,  Janu 
ary  13,  1814.  "  Resolved,  that  we  place  the  fullest  confidence 
in  the  Governor  and  Legislature  of  Massachusetts,  and  in  the 
State  authorities  of  New  England ;  and  that  to  them,  under 
God,  the  chief  Governor  of  the  universe,  we  look  for  aid  and 
direction ;  and  that,  for  the  present,  until  public  opinion  shall 
be  known,  we  will  not  enter  our  carriages,  pay  our  Continental 
taxes,  or  aid,  inform,  or  assist  any  officer  in  their  collection." — 
Passed  l)y  the  inhabitants  of  Heading,  Mass.,  January  5,  1815. 
"A  separation  of  the  States  will  be  an  inevitable  result.  Mo 
tives,  numerous  and  urgent,  will  demand  that  measure.  As  they 
originate  in  oppression,  the  oppressors  must  be  responsible  for 
the  momentous  and  contingent  events  arising  from  the  dissolu 
tion  of  the  present  Confederacy,  and  erection  of  separate  govern 
ments.  It  will  be  their  work." — Northern  Grievances,  p.  4, 
May,  1814.  These  are  specimens. 

"  Yes,  sir,  .1  consider  this  Administration  as  alien  to  us,  so 
much  so,  that  New  England  would  be  justified  in  declaring 
them  like  all  foreign  nations,  enemies  in  war,  in  peace  friends." 
"  The  States  of  New  England  can  never  be  satellites  in  any  sys 
tem  ;  but,  like  the  primary  planets,  they  will  revolve  round  the 
sun  of  Federalism,  until  the  Almighty  hand,  which  created 
them,  shall  dash  them  from  their  orbits  forever." — CYRUS  KING, 
of  Massachusetts,  in  Congress,  October  22,  1814. 

"  On  or  before  the  fourth  of  July  next,  if  JAMES  MADISON  is 
not  out  of  office,  a  new  form  of  government  will  be  in  operation 
in  the  Eastern  section  of  the  Union.  Instantly  after,  the  con 
test  in  many  of  the  States  will  be,  whether  to  adhere  to  the  old. 
or  to  join  the  new  Government." — Federal  fiejyubli 


THE    IIARTFOED   CONVENTION.  05 


TIIE    IIARTFOED    CONTENTION. 

"Early  in  the  year  1814,  memorials  from  a  great  many 
towns  in  Massachusetts,  were  forwarded  to  the  Legislature  of 
that  State,  praying  that  body  to  exert  their  authority  to  protect 
the  citizens  in  their  Constitutional  rights  and  privileges,  and 
suggesting  the  expediency  of  appointing  delegates  to  meet  dele 
gates  from  such  other  States  as  may  choose  to  appoint  them, 
for  the  purpose  of  devising  proper  measures  to  procure  tho 
united  efforts  of  the  commercial  States  to  obtain  such  amend 
ments  and  explanations  of  the  Constitution  as  will  secure  them 
from  further  evils." 

Accordingly,  on  the  IGth  of  October,  1S14,  by  a  large  ma 
jority  of  the  Legislature — 2GO  yeas,  90  nays — twelve  men  wero 
appointed  as  delegates  from  Massachusetts  to  meet  in  conven 
tion  other  delegates  from  the  other  New  England  States. 

The  Convention  met  in  Hartford  on  the  15th  of  December, 
1814.  There  were  twelve  members  from  Massachusetts  ;  seven 
from  Connecticut ;  four  from  Rhode  Island  ;  three  from  New 
Hampshire  ;  one  from  Vermont.  They  were  gentlemen  of  tho 
highest  character  for  intelligence,  wisdom,  and  patriotism.  Af 
ter  a  session  of  three  weeks,  they  made  a  report  of  the  result  of 
their  conference. 

In  order  to  remove  the  evils  under  which  they  were  suffer 
ing,  and  prevent  their  recurrence,  the  Convention  proposed  cer 
tain  amendments  to  the  Federal  Constitution ;  by  which  the  slave 
States  would  be  deprived  of  the  slave  representation,  as  at  pres 
ent  provided ;  and  by  which,  new  States  would  be  prevented 
from  coining  into  the  Union,  except  by  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of 
both  Houses  ;  and  by  which,  Congress  would  be  deprived  of 
power  to  lay  an  embargo  for  more  than  sixty  days ;  and  by 
which,  Congress  shall  not  have  power,  without  the  concurrence 
of  two-thirds  of  both  Houses,  to  interdict  the  commercial  inter 
course  between  the  United  States  and  any  foreign  nation  ;  and 
by  which,  Congress  shall  not  have  power  to  make  or  declare 
war  against  a  foreign  nation,  without  the  concurrence  of  two- 
thirds  of  both  Houses  ;  and  by  which,  persons  naturalized  here- 


66  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

after  shall  not  be  eligible  to  certain  offices  ;  and  by  which,  no 
person  shall  be  a  second  time  elected  President. 

It  was  also  resolved  by  the  Convention,  that  in  the  event  of 
the  continuance  of  the  present  evils,  without  a  prospect  of  re 
lief,  it  will,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Convention,  be  expedient 
for  the  Legislatures  of  the  several  States  to  send  delegates  to 
another  Convention,  to  meet  in  June  next.  Provision  was  also 
made  for  calling  another  meeting  of  the  Convention,  if  it  should 
be  desirable,  before  new  delegates  shall  be  chosen. 

In  that  report,  drawn  up  with  great  ability,  they  discuss  the 
subject  of  the  dissolution  of  the  Union ,  to  which  public  atten 
tion  had  been  earnestly  turned,  and  the  formation  of  a  new  Con 
federacy,  as  the  means  of  escaping  the  evils  under  which  the 
commercial  States  were  suffering.  Such  a  dissolution,  they 
say,  should  "  be  the  work  of  peaceable  times  and  deliberate 
consent ;  "  "  some  new  form  of  Confederacy  should  be  substi 
tuted  among  those  States  which  shall  intend  to  maintain  a 
Federal  relation  to  each  other."  "  Whenever  it  shall  appear 
that  these  causes  (of  our  calamities)  are  radical  and  permanent, 
a  separation,  by  mutual  arrangement,  will  be  preferable  to  an 
alliance,  by  constraint,  among  nominal  friends  but  real  enemies." 
They  argue,  at  length,  against  the  claims  of  the  General  Gov 
ernment  upon  the  militia  of  the  States,  and  justify  Massachusetts 
and  Connecticut  in  refusing  to  place  the  militia  in  the  regular 
army  and  under  United  States  officers.  They  complain  that 
the  "  Constitutional  Compact,"  as  they  term  the  Constitution, 
has  been  extensively  violated  by  the  General  Government,  and 
that  so  many  abuses  have  been  practised,  under  color  of  its  au 
thority,  that  the  time  for  change  is  believed  to  be  at  hand. 
They  declare  that  "  acts  of  Congress  in  violation  of  the  Consti 
tution  are  absolutely  void"  And,  as  the  Governors  of  Massa 
chusetts  and  Connecticut  had  refused  to  place  the  militia  of 
those  States  in  the  regular  army,  and  under  the  officers  of  the 
General  Government,  they  propose  that  a  portion  of  the  na 
tional  tax,  raised  by  the  State,  should  be  paid  into  its  treasury, 
to  be  used  for  its  defence,  for  which  the  General  Government 
had  neglected  to  provide,  in  the  case  of  those  States.  They 
declare  that  they  are  "  solicitous  for  the  continuance  of  the 
Union  as  well  as  the  sovereignty  of  the  States." 


CONTEMPORANEOUS   VIEWS    OF   NORTHERN   MEN.  67 

The  first  amendment  proposed,  namely,  to  take  from  tlie 
South  the  representation  of  slaves,  was  designed  to  lessen  the 
political  power  of  the  South.  The  object  of  the  second  amend 
ment  proposed  was  substantially  the  same  ;  or,  in  the  language 
of  HARRISON  GRAY  OTIS,  "the  object  of  the  amendment  was  to 
diminish  what  the  decision  of  the  Missouri  question  is  calculated 
to  increase — the  representation  of  slaves."  This  referred  to  the 
admission  of  Louisiana. 

The  Legislatures  of  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut,  on  re 
ceiving  the  report  of  the  Hartford  Convention,  sent  commission 
ers  to  Washington  ;  the  former,  HARRISON  GRAY  OTIS,  THOMAS 
IT.  PERKINS,  and  WILLIAM  SULLIVAN;  the  latter,  NATHANIEL 
TERRY  and  CALVIN  GODDARD. 


CONTEMPORANEOUS    VIEWS    OF   NORTHERN   MEN. 
JOHN   LOWELL. 

In  an  ably-reasoned  pamphlet,  written  by  JOHN  LOWELL,  of 
Massachusetts,  and  published  in  1812,  the  writer  asked :  "  Is 
there  no  Constitutional  right  in  the  executive,  judiciary,  and 
people  of  the  several  States,  to  judge  whether  the  militia  are, 
or  are  not,  Constitutionally  called  into  service  ?  In  whom,  from 
the  very  nature  of  the  limitation  in  the  Constitution,  reposes 
the  ultimate  right  to  judge  whether  either  of  the  three  cases,  (to 
execute  the  laws  of  the  Union  ;  suppress  insurrections ;  and 
repel  invasion,)  provided  by  the  Constitution,  does  exist  ? 

"  We  answer,  generally  in  the  constituent,  not  in  the  dele 
gate  ;  in  the  master,  not  in  the  servant ;  ultimately  in  the  peo 
ple,  (of  the  several  States ;)  principally  from  the  necessity  of 
the  case  in  the  commanders-in-chief  of  the  several  States.  The 
very  idea  of  limitation  excludes  the  possibility  that  the  delegate 
should  be  the  judge.  If  he  were,  his  powers  would  be  limited 
only  by  his  own  judgment,  or,  in  other  words,  by  his  own  arbi 
trary  will,  which  is  no  limitation  at  all."  The  General  Govern 
ment  is  regarded  here  as  the  delegate,  and  the  people  of  the  sev 
eral  States  as  the  constituent,  acting  by  their  constituted  au 
thorities  as  Governors,  Judges,  or  Legislatures.  "We  have  the 
distinct  declaration  of  the  doctrine  of  State  rights,  from  one  of 


68  THE   SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

the  ablest  and  best  men  of  the  times.  If  carried  to  its  logical 
results  it  comes  fully  up  to  the  Virginia  resolutions  of  1798, 
fully  up  to  the  teachings  of  JEFFERSON  and  MADISON. 

GOUVERNEUR   MORRIS. 

GOUVERNEUR  MORRIS  was  the  very  man  in  the  Constitutional 
Convention  who  revised  the  language  of  the  Constitution  before 
its  final  adoption  by  that  body,  and  must  therefore  have  un 
derstood  what  was  its  meaning  and  its  bearings  and  the  nature 

O  O 

of  the  compact,  and  who  were  the  parties  to  it.  He  declared 
that  it  was  a  compact  between  the  States,  and  not  a  compact 
between  individuals  scattered  over  the  whole  Union.  These 
are  his  words  :  "  That  the  Constitution  was  a  compact,  not  be 
tween  solitary  individuals,  but  between  political  societies,  the 
people,  not  of  America,  but  of  the  United  States — each  (State) 
enjoying  sovereign  power,  and  of  course  equal  rights."  Thus  it 
differs  from  a  State  Constitution,  which  is  a  compact,  so  far  as 
it  can  be  called  a  compact,  between  individuals.  It  is  a  com 
pact  between  sovereignties. 

"New  England  will,  I  trust,  continue  true  to  herself.  The 
appropriate  course,  pertinaciously  pursued,  must  open  the  eyes 
even  of  the  wilfully  blind.  You  will  unite  with  Massachusetts, 
and  New  York  must  connect  herself,  whether  she  will  or  no, 
with  New  England.  The  question  of  boundary  to  be  solved, 
therefore,  is  the  Delaware,  Susquehanna,  or  Potomac." — Letter 
of  Gouverneur  ^Morris  to  Lewis  Sturgis,  Connecticut*  Nov.  1, 
1814. 

"  I  supposed,  also,  that  to  such  as  would  charge  you  with 
meditating  a  breach  of  the  Union,  you  would  calmly  reply : 
4  The  Union  is  already  broken  by  this  Administration.  Should 
we  now  rely  upon  it,  we  should  forfeit  all  claim  to  common 
sense.' r  —Idem,  to  Harrison  Gray  Otis,  Nov.  8,  1S14. 

Having  in  the  first  extract  stated  what  is  the  nature  of  the 
Constitutional  Compact,  and  who  are  the  parties  to  it,  namely, 
the  States,  he  then,  in  the  next  two,  shows  in  what  way  the 
meditated  separation  of  the  States  can  be  justified,  and  where 
might  be  the  line  of  separation. 

JOHN  ADAMS,  in  a  letter  to  THOMAS  JEFFERSON,  July,  1813, 
says :  "  The  Northern  States  are  now  retaliating  upon  the 


DE    WITT   CLINTON.  GO 

Southern  States,  their  conduct  from  1797  to  1800."  He  al 
ludes  to  the  opposition  to  his  own  administration  by  the  South 
ern  States,  especially  by  Virginia  and  Kentucky. 


DE    WITT    CLINTON. 


"  The  opposition,  now  excited,  is  not  an  ordinary  opposition. 
It  does  not  merely  aim  a  blow  at  a  rival  party.  Nor  is  it  con 
fined  to  the  destruction  of  an  individual.  It  takes  a  more 
daring  and  adventurous  attitude.  It  bids  defiance  to  our  laws, 
and  threatens  the  dissolution  of  the  Union.  It  is,  perhaps, 
known  to  but  few,  that  the  project  of  the  dismemberment  of 
this  country  is  not  a  novel  plan  growing  out  of  recent  measures 
of  the  Government,  as  has  been  pretended.  It  has  been  cher 
ished  by  a  number  of  individuals  for  a  series  of  years ;  and  a 
few  months  before  the  death  of  a  distinguished  citizen,  whose 
death  so  strongly  excited  the  public  sensibility,  it  was  proposed 
to  him  to  enlist  his  great  talents  in  the  formation  of  this  nefarious 
scheme  ;  arid,  to  his  honor  be  it  spoken,  it  was  repelled  by  him 
with  disdain.  Some  of  the  newspapers  of  New  England  have, 
at  various  times,  inculcated  the  treasonable  doctrines  in  elab 
orate  essays,  and  the  match  appears  to  be  now  lighted,  to  pro 
duce  an  explosion,  which  will  overwhelm  us  with  all  the  evils 
of  civil  war. 

"  Look  at  the  storm  that  is  gathering  in  the  east ;  its  clouds  are 
black,  heavy,  and  portentous.  Look  at  the  resolves  of  several 
of  the  towns,  and  even  of  the  capital  of  Massachusetts.  Observe 
the  disorganizing,  Jacobinical,  seditious,  and  traitorous  spirit 
which  pervades  them.  The  Legislatures  of  the  several  States 
are  incited  to  array  themselves  against  the  General  Govern 
ment.  The  very  men  who  a  few  years  since  were  the  strenuous 
advocates  for  putting  down  the  State  Governments,  for  a  strong 
National  Government,  that  would  maintain  the  union  of  the 
States  ;  for  an  energetic,  absorbing  National  Government,  that 
would  control  and  regulate  the  centrifugal  force  of  the  local 
Government,  these  men  are  now  warm  partisans  of  a  State  su 
premacy,  the  devoted  friends  of  the  St«t.«»  T.ogiolaiuics." — Sjjvcch 
yf  n,  TTTOJ  ^vtr,  «,«//<,,  ^n  Senate  of  New  York. 

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS  fully  sustains  the  declarations  of  Mr. 
CLINTON,  and  refers  to  the  "  distinguished  citizen,"  who,  it  was 


TO  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

hoped,  would  lead  the  armies  of  the  North,  in  a  possible  con 
test  with  the  Federal  Government,  and  who  was  no  other  than 
ALEXANDER  HAMILTON. 

The  sentiments  of  disunion  were  in  existence  at  the  North 
at  an  early  period,  certainly  as  early  as  1796,  not  long  after  the 
ratification  of  JAY'S  treaty  was  opposed  by  Mr.  MADISON,  Mr. 
GILES,  and  other  leading  men  of  the  South,  and  just  before  the 
election  of  Mr.  ADAMS,  who  was  destined  to  meet  with  oppo 
sition  to  his  election  from  the  Southern  States,  and  then  with 
embarrassments  during  his  administration,  and  finally  with  de 
feat  when  candidate  a  second  time. 

The  following  is  an  extract  from  a  very  able  series  of  papers, 
signed  PELHAM,  and  published  in  the  Connecticut  Courant,  in 
Hartford,  1796  : 

"I  shall,  in  the  future  papers,  consider  some  of  the  great 
events  wrhich  will  lead  to  a  separation  of  the  United  States  / 
show  the  importance  of  retaining  their  present  Constitution, 
even  at  the  expense  of  a  separation  ;  endeavor  to  prove  the  re 
sponsibility  of  a  Union  for  a  long  period  in  future,  both  from  the 
moral  and  political  habits  of  the  citizens  of  the  Northern  States ; 
and  finally,  examine  carefully  to  see  whether  we  have  not  al 
ready  approached  to  the  era  when  they  must  ~be  divided" 

These  sentiments  gathered  strength  during  Mr.  JEFFERSON'S 
administration,  from  the  purchase  of  Louisiana  and  the  restric 
tions  upon  commerce,  until,  in  1809,  they  became  so  well  known, 
that  an  agent,  JOHN  HENRY,  was  sent  by  the  Governor-general 
of  Canada,  Sir  JAMES  CRAIG,  into  New  England,  in  reference  to 
a  co-operation  with  England,  and  a  union  with  Canada.  These 
sentiments  still  gathered  strength  during  Mr.  MADISON'S  admin 
istration,  until  they  culminated  in  the  appointment  of  the  Hart 
ford  Convention,  and  brought  the  Eastern  States  to  the  very 
verge  of  disunion.  For  this  the  General  Government  was  held 
responsible.  "  If,  by  your  violence  and  oppression,  you  drive 
off  New  England  from  the  Confederacy,  you  must  answer  for 
it.  And  you  have  already  driven  them  to  the  very  brink. 
One  step  more,  and  the  union  of  these  States  is  severed." — Fed 
eral  Republican. 

This  was  a  matter  of  general  notoriety  throughout  me  uuuii- 
try.  The  following  is  an  extract  from  a  letter  addressed  to 


REMARKS.  71 

ELBRIDGE  GERRY,  of  Massachusetts,  dated  June  11,  1812,  from 
Mr.  JEFFERSON  : 

"  What  then  does  this  English  faction  with  you  mean  ? 
Their  newspapers  say,  rebellion,  and  that  they  will  not  continue 
united  with  us,  iinless  we  will  permit  them  to  govern  the  ma 
jority.  *  *  They  count  on  British  aid.  But  what  can  that 
avail  them  by  land  ?  They  would  separate  from  their  friends, 
who  alone  furnish  employment  for  their  navigation,  to  unite 
with  their  only  rival,  for  that  employment.  *  *  But  I  trust 
that  such  perverseness  will  not  be  that  of  the  honest  and  well- 
meaning  mass  of  the  Federalists  of  Massachusetts ;  and  that 
when  the  question  of  separation  and  rebellion  shall  be  nakedly 
proposed  to  them,  the  GORES  and  the  PICKERINGS  will  find  their 
levees  crowded  with  silk  stocking  gentry,  but  no  yeomanry  ;  an 
army  of  officers,  but  no  soldiers." 

REMARKS. 

1.  When  the  North  was  the  dominant  section  in  the  General 
Government,  Southern  statesmen  placed  themselves  on  the  re 
served  rights  of  the  States,  to  resist  the  encroachments  of  federal 
power,  under  the  first  two  Presidents ;   as  in  the  case  of  the 
assumption  of  State  debts,  and  of  the  charter  of  the  United 
States  Bank  ;  and  of  the  alien  and  sedition  laws. 

When  the  South  became  the  dominant  section  in  the  Gen 
eral  Government,  the  Northern  States  placed  themselves  on  the 
same  reserved  rights  of  the  States,  to  resist  the  encroachments 
of  federal  power,  under  Presidents  JEFFERSON  and  MADISON  ;  as 
in  the  case  of  the  purchase  of  Louisiana,  and  of  the  restrictions 
upon  commerce  ;  and  of  the  requisition  to  place  the  militia  of 
the  States  under  federal  officers. 

In  each  case  the  dominant  party  was  opposed  to  the  doc 
trines  of  State  rights.  The  North  was  opposed  to  the  Virginia 
and  the  Kentucky  resolutions.  The  South  was  opposed  to  the 
doctrines  of  the  Hartford  Convention. 

2.  The  doctrine  of  State  rights  was  asserted  in  1798  by  Vir 
ginia,  and  in  1814  by  Massachusetts,  in  a  manner  corresponding 
with  the  character  of  the  people  of  the  two  States.     In  a  letter, 
dated  Dec.  18,  1814,  addressed  to  JAMES  LLOYD,  of  Massachu- 


72  THE   SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

Belts,  JOHN  EANDOLPH  writes  :  "  A  Virginia  and  a  New  England 
^Republican  are  about  as  much  alike  as  an  English  whig  and  a 
French  democrat."  And  yet  the  doctrines  of  State  rights,  as 
enunciated  by  Northern  statesmen  and  by  Southern  statesmen, 
are  substantially  the  same,  Tlie  Northern  view  and  the  South 
ern  in  these  cases  were  nearly  the  same. 

a.  That  the  Constitution  is  federal,  namely,  a  compact  be 
tween  the  States,  and  was  made  by  the  States,  namely  by  the 
people  of  each  State,  acting  for  the  State,  and  not  by  solitary 
individuals,  each  acting  for  himself. — See  Gouvcrneur  Morris's 
Declaration,  Dr.  /SI  Johnson's  Remarks,  <&c. 

b.  That  the  Constitution  was  formed  for  the  States,  and  for 
individuals  only  as  a  citizen  of  a  State. 

c.  That  all  powers  not  distinctly  given  to  the  General  Gov 
ernment,  are  reserved  to  the  States ;  and  that  it  is  just  as  im 
portant  that  the  reserved  powers  should  remain  unimpaired,  as 
that  the  granted  powers  should  be  unimpaired. 

d.  Tli at  each  State,  as  a  party  to  the  compact,  must  judge 
as  to  the  powers  granted,  and  of  any  violation  of  the  compact. 

e.  That  if  a  dispute  should  arise  between  a  State  and  its  co- 
States,  in  respect  to  what  powers  are  granted  and  what  powers 
are  reserved,  an  amendment  to  the  compact  by  a  Convention  of 
the  States,  or  otherwise,  must  settle  the  doubtful  point. 

f.  That  if  the  compact  be  broken  by  the  States  "  on  one  side, 
it  is  broken  on  all  sides." 

3.  Violent  resistance  was,  during  the  TVar  of  1812,  threatened 
against  some  of  the  requisitions  of  the  Federal  Government. 
Governor  TRUMBULL  of  Connecticut,  took  the  ground,  that  on 
great  emergencies,  when  the  National  Legislature  had  been 
led  to  overstep  its  Constitutional  powers,  it  became  the  right 
and  the  duty  of  the  State  Legislatures  "  to  interpose  their  pro 
tecting  shield  between  the  rights  and  the  liberties  of  the  people, 
and  the  assumed  power  of  the  General  Government."  Gov 
ernor  CHITTENDEN,  of  Vermont,  had  issued  his  proclamation,  re 
calling  the  Vermont  militia.  And  when  a  member  of  Congress 
proposed  to  instruct  the  Attorney-general  to  prosecute  Governor 
CHITTENDEN,  "  Mr.  OTIS  laid  on  the  table  of  the  Massachusetts 
senate  a  resolve  expressive  of  the  duty  and  readiness  of  Massa 
chusetts,  to  aid  with  her  whole  power  the  Governor  of  Vcr- 


KEMAEKS.  73 

mont,  and  the  people  of  any  other  State,  in  support  of  Consti 
tutional  rights,  by  whomsoever  infringed."  By  a  legislative 
act,  the  authorities  of  the  United  States  were  forbid  "  to  use 
the  gaols  in  Massachusetts  for  the  confinement  of  prisoners  com 
mitted  by  any  other  than  judicial  authority  ;  and  the  gaolers 
were  directed,  at  the  end  of  thirty  days,  to  discharge  all  British 
officers,  prisoners  of  war,  committed  to  them  for  close  confine 
ment." 

A  Bill  for  the  enlistment  of  minors  having  passed  Congress, 
the  Legislatures  of  Connecticut  and  Massachusetts  "  proceeded 
to  pass  an  act  requiring  the  State  judges  to  discharge,  on  habeas 
corpus,  all  minors  enlisted  without  the  consent  of  their  parents  or 
guardians,  and  subjecting  to  fine  and  imprisonment  any  per 
sons  concerned  in  any  such  enlistment,  who  should  remove  any 
minor  out  of  the  State,  so  that  he  could  not  be  then  discharged." 

4.  Mr.  MADISON  was  greatly  disturbed  and  annoyed  by  the 
meeting  of  the  Hartford  Convention,  and  by  the  necessity  of 
meeting  the  commissioners  appointed  by  Massachusetts  and  Con 
necticut.     But  the  tidings  of  peace  came,  just  as  they  arrived 
in  Washington,  and  relieved  him  from  the  necessity  of  receiv 
ing  them  in  the  character  of  commissioners,  and  of  entering 
into  negotiations  with  them  on  the  subject  of  their  mission  ;  but 
placed  them  in  a  very  awkward  position. 

On  the  arrival  of  the  intelligence  that  a  treaty  of  peace  had 
been  signed,  the  people  of  Washington  hastened  to  the  Presi 
dent's  levee,  in  the  fulness  of  their  joy.  One,  \vlio  was  present, 
told  me,  that  the  hilarity  exceeded  all  common  bounds ;  that, 
not  satisfied  with  congratulating  one  another  once,  they  would, 
many  of  them,  repeat  the  congratulations.  Mr.  MADISON  acted 
as  if  a  great  load  had  been  removed  from  his  mind.  Mrs.  MAD 
ISON  was  more  of  a  queen  than  ever. 

When  the  mirth  was  at  the  highest,  the  commissioners  were 
announced.  Immediately,  from  the  shock,  there  was  a  uni 
versal  stillness,  like  that  in  a  church.  They  were  received  by 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  MADISON  with  all  due  courtesy  ;  but  it  was  some 
minutes  before  the  assembly  relapsed  into  its  former  hilarity, 
and  before  the  commissioners  were  restored  to  their  natural 
dignity  and  self-possession. 

5.  What  course  would  have  been  taken  in  Kew  England,  if 


74:  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

peace  had  not  been  declared,  it  is  impossible  to  say.  How  far 
the  General  Government  might  have  been  disposed  to  comply 
with  the  proposals  or  demands  of  the  Hartford  Convention,  it 
is  impossible  to  say.  But  this  much  can  be  said,  that  the  men 
who  were  concerned  in  this  sectional  movement,  in  the  State 
Legislatures  and  the  Convention,  were  men  of  the  highest  char 
acter  for  intelligence,  virtue,  and  patriotism  ;  as  also  were  those 
concerned  in  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  resolutions  in  179S--'9. 
In  each  case  they  knew  their  rights,  and  knowing,  they  dared 
to  maintain  them. 

6.  The  reserved  rights  of  the  States  need  to  be  constantly 
kept  before  the  minds  of  those  who  are  called  to  act  in  the 
legislative,  the  executive,  and  the  judicial  departments  of  the 
General  Government,  lest  they  should  lose  their  influence,  and 
the  granted  powers  become,  in  practice,  too  much  enlarged. 
There  is  a  strong  centralizing  tendency,  arising  from  that  love 
of  power  which  is  inherent  in  human  nature,  from  a  desire  to 
carry  out  certain  measures  deemed  useful,  but  which  the  Con 
stitution   does  not  authorize ;    and   especially  from   the   great 
patronage  of  the  Government,  which  it  can  use  to  induce  men 
to  support  its  usurpation. 

7.  The  relations  of  the  Federal  Government  to  the  State 
Governments  are  not  well  understood.     The  following  are  the 
remarks  of  Mr.  JEFFERSON  : 

"  "With  respect  to  our  State  and  Federal  Governments,  I  do 
not  think  that  their  relations  are  correctly  understood  by  for 
eigners.  They  generally  suppose  the  former  to  be  subordinate 
to  the  latter.  But  this  is  not  the  case.  They  are  co-ordinate 
departments  of  one  simple  and  integral  whole.  But  you  may 
ask,  if  the  two  departments  should  claim  each  the  same  subject 
of  power,  where  is  the  common  umpire  to  decide  between  them  ? 
In  cases  of  little  importance  and  urgency,  the  prudence  of  both 
parties  will  keep  them  aloof  from  the  questionable  ground  ;  but 
if  it  can  neither  be  avoided,  nor  compromised,  a  Convention  of 
the  States  must  be  called  to  ascribe  the  doubtful  power  to  that 
department  which  they  may  tliink  best" 

KOSSUTH,  it  is  said,  formed  an  exception  to  this  general  re 
mark  respecting  foreigners ;  for  he  understood  at  once  the  na 
ture  of  the  American  Confederacy.  "  It  is,"  said  he,  "  a  Re* 
public,  composed  of  republics." 


KEMAEKS.  75 

But  the  relations  of  the  Federal  Government  to  the  State 
Governments  are  not  well  understood,  even  by  the  native-born 
citizens.  The  Virginia  and  Kentucky  resolutions  on  the  one 
hand,  and  on  the  other  the  doctrines  taught  in  Massachusetts 
and  Connecticut  during  the  war,  and,  indeed,  some  years  before 
that  era,  if  carefully  studied,  will  assist  a  citizen  of  the  States  to 
understand  our  double  Government  -9  and  to  learn  what  are  the 
powers  granted  to  the  Federal  Government,  and  what  are  the 
rights  reserved  to  the  States. 

8.  While  New  England  was  meditating  the  separation  of  the 
States  in  certain  contingencies,  the  general  feeling  in  that  sec 
tion  was,  that  a  peaceful  separation  ought  to  take  place,  if  at 
all ;  or,  in  the  language  of  the  Hartford  Convention,  that  "  a 
separation  by  mutual  arrangement  will  be  preferable  to  an  al 
liance  by  constraint  among  nominal  friends,  but  real  enemies." 
JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS,  in  a  speech  delivered  in  the  city  of  New 
York,  in  1839,  just  fifty  years  after  the  Federal  Constitution 
went  into  operation,  expressed  the  same  sentiments  : 

"  But  the  indissoluble  link  of  union  between  the  people  of 
the  several  States  in  this  Confederation  is,  after  all,  not  in  the 
right  but  in  the  heart.  If  the  day  should  ever  come — may 
heaven  avert  it! — when  the  affections  of  the  people  in  these 
States  shall  be  alienated  from  each  other — when  the  fraternal 
feeling  shall  give  way  to  cold  indifference,  or  collisions  of  in 
terest  shall  foster  into  hatred— the  bonds  of  political  association, 
will  not  long  hold  together  parties  no  longer  attracted  by  the- 
magnetism  of  conciliated  interests  and  friendly  sympathies ;. 
and/<zr  better  will  it  be  for  the  people  of  the  disunited  States- 
to  part  in  friendship  from  each  other,  than  to  be  held,  together 
by  constraint.  Then  will  be  the  time  for  reverting  to  the  pre 
cedents  which  occurred  at  the  formation  and  adoption  of  the 
Constitution,  to  form  again  a  more  perfect  union  by  dissolving 
that  which  could  no  longer  bind,  and  to  leave  the  separate  parta 
to  be  united  by  the  law  of  political  gravitation  to  the  centre." 


CHAPTER  VII. 

MK.  MONROE'S  ADMINISTRATION. 

MARCH  4,  1817— MARCH  4,  1825. 

THE  period  of  Mr.  MONROE'S  administration  has  been  styled 
the  "  era  of  good  feeling."  The  war  had,  with  some  reverses, 
been  triumphantly  sustained.  Old  sectional  feuds  had  died 
out.  The  Federal  party  having  ceased  to  exist,  new  political 
friendships  had  been  formed.  Mr.  CLAY  had  brought  from 
abroad  an  admiration  of  some  of  the  institutions  of  Great 
Britain.  Some  of  the  old  difficulties  with  that  nation  had 
been  settled.  The  manufactures  of  the  North  had,  to  some 
extent,  been  protected  by  the  tariff  law  of  1816,  passed  partly 
by  Southern  votes.  The  commercial  interests  of  the  North  had 
been  favored  by  the  establishment  of  the  United  States  Bank  ; 
the  bill  having  been  signed  by  a  Southern  President,  who  had 
been  opposed  to  a  bank.  Business  revived.  Internal  improve 
ments  were  projected.  Hopes  of  general  prosperity  were  rife 
in  the  land.  President  MONROE  made  a  tour  through  the  North 
ern  and  Eastern  States,  and  was  everywhere  received  with  demon 
strations  of  cordiality  and  good  will.  And  yet  in  his  adminis 
tration,  a  sectional  contest  arose  of  the  most  bitter  and  dangerous 
character,  threatening  at  once  the  unity  and  peace  of  the  country. 

RESTRICTION    OF   SLAVERY   IN   ^MISSOURI. 

February  13,  1819. — The  bill,  enabling  Missouri  to  form  a 
State  Government,  was  taken  up  in  the  House  of  Representa- 


RESTRICTION   OF   SLAVERY    IN    MISSOURI.  77 

lives  ;  the  question  being  on  the  following  amendment,  moved 
by  Mr.  TALLMAGE  of  New  York  : 

"  And  provided,  That  the  further  introduction  of  slavery  or 
involuntary  servitude  be  prohibited,  except  for  the  punishment 
of  crimes,  whereof  the  party  has  been  duly  convicted  ;  and  that 
all  children  born  within  the  said  State,  after  the  admission 
thereof  into  the  Union,  shall  be  free  at  the  age  of  twenty-five 
years." 

Mr.  TAYLOR,  of  New  York,  in  favor  of  the  amendment,  after 
speaking  on  the  importance  of  the  question,  said  there  were  two 
points  at  issue :  1.  Has  Congress  the  constitutional  power  to 
prohibit  slavery  as  the  condition  of  admission  ;  2.  If  the  power 
exists,  is  it  wise  to  exercise  it  ? 

His  arguments  were  drawn  from  that  article  in  the  Consti 
tution,  which  declares  that  "  the  Congress  shall  have  power  to 
dispose  of,  and  make  all  needful  rules  respecting  the  territory 
and  other  property  belonging  to  the  United  States  ;  "  from  the 
fact  that  slavery  is  wrong,  being  contrary  to  the  Declaration  ol 
Independence,  which  asserts  "  that  all  men  are  created  equal ;" 
from  the  fact  that  slavery  is  incompatible  with  republican  in 
stitutions. 

Mr.  P.  P.  BARBOUR,  of  Virginia,  opposed  the  amendment, 
on  the  ground  that  the  Congress  has  no  constitutional  power  to 
impose  the  restriction ;  that  Congress  has  power  to  "  admit  new 
States  into  the  Union."  "  The  term  State  has  a  fixed  and  deter 
minate  meaning.  It  imports  the  existence  of  a  political  com 
munity,  free  and  independent,  and  entitled  to  exercise  the  rights 
of  sovereignty,  such  as  the  original  States  enjoyed.  Virginia 
has  slaves ;  Pennsylvania  has  no  slaves,  but  she  has  power  to 
have  them  ;  ought  not  Missouri  to  have  the  same  power  in  this 
respect  that  Pennsylvania  has  ? "  Other  gentlemen  who  engaged 
in  the  discvfesion  took  similar  grounds. 

The  amendment  passed  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  79 
to  67. 

On  the  16th  of  February,  the  House  proceeded  to  consider  the 
restriction.  After  an  able  discussion,  the  amendment  was  passed 
by  a  vote  of  87  to  76,  on  the  first  branch  ;  and  by  a  vote  of  82 
to  78,  on  the  second  branch. 

The  Senate  passed  the  bill  to  admit  Missouri  without  the  re- 


78  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

etriction,  March  2d.  On  the  motion  to  concur  with  the  Senate, 
the  vote  was  76  yeas,  78  nays.  Thus  the  bill  failed,  the  Houses 
having  failed  to  agree. 

"  This,"  says  Benton,  in  the  "  Debates  in  Congress,"  "  was 
the  end  of  the  bill,  and  it  left  the  Houses  geographically  divided, 
and  the  same  division  extending  itself,  with  electric  speed,  to 
the  States.  It  was  a  period  of  deep  apprehension,  filling  with 
dismay  the  hearts  of  the  steadiest  patriots.  It  would  be  nine 
months  before  Congress  would  sit  again.  The  agitation,  great 
as  it  was,  was  to  become  greater,  and  no  one  could  foresee  its 
bounds.  The  movement  to  put  the  slavery  restriction  on  Ar 
kansas  greatly  aggravated  the  Missouri  question,  and  seemed  to 
menace  the  slave  States  with  total  exclusion  from  Louisiana." 

It  was  during  the  agitation  and  suspense  of  the  public  mind, 
that  Mr.  MADISON  wrote  a  letter  to  ROBERT  WALSH,  dated  JSrov. 
27,  1819,  just  before  the  meeting  of  Congress,  from  which  the 
following  is  an  extract :  "  Parties,  under  some  denomination  or 
other,  must  always  be  expected  in  a  free  government  like  ours. 
When  the  individuals  belonging  to  them  are  intermingled  in 
every  part  of  the  whole  country,  they  strengthen  the  union  of 
the  whole,  while  they  divide  every  part.  Should  a  state  of 
parties  arise,  founded  on  geographical  boundaries,  and  other 
physical  and  permanent  distinctions  which  happen  to  coincide 
with  them,  what  is  then  to  control  those  great  repulsive  masses 
from  awful  shocks  against  each  other  ?  " 

The  Southern  States  deeply  felt,  that  by  the  action  of  the 
House,  their  constitutional  rights  had  been  denied  to  them,  and 
that  language  had  been  used  and  arguments  employed,  derog 
atory  to  their  character.  It  was  in  reference  to  this  state  of 
things,  and  while  the  country  was  in  a  blaze  of  excitement,  that 
Mr.  JEFFERSON  wrote,  that  the  notes  of  alarm  fell  upon  his  ear 
like  a  "  fire  bell  in  the  night." 

"  The  Missouri  question,"  he  says,  "  is  the  most  portentous 
one  that  ever  threatened  our  Union.  In  the  gloomiest  moments 
of  the  Revolutionary  War,  I  never  had  any  apprehensions  equal 
to  wrhat  I  feel  from  this  source." 

In  the  early  part  of  the  next  session  in  Congress,  Jan.  3, 
1820,  it  was  proposed  in  the  Senate  to  couple  Missouri  with 
Maine  in  one  bill,  the  latter  having  applied  to  be  admitted  as 


RESTRICTION   OF   SLAVERY   IN   MISSOURI.  79 

a  State  into  the  Union.  To  tins  there  was  great  opposition  on 
the  part  of  Northern  members,  and  very  extensive  discussion, 
in  which  the  evils  of  slavery  formed  an  important  part  of  the 
staple  of  a  portion  of  the  speeches.  To  show  the  absurdity  of 
coupling  them  together,  Mr.  ROBERTS  of  Pennsylvania  said : 
"  What  do  we  find  in  the  front  of  the  Constitution  of  Maine  ? 
Article  I.  Section  1 :  'All  men  are  born  free  and  equal,  and  are 
free  to  worship  God  in  their  own  way.'  Here  is  a  substantial 
pledge  to  the  good  old  faith.  To  her  we  may  say,*  Come,  sister, 
take  your  place  in  this  constellation  :  the  lustre  of  your  counte 
nance  will  brighten  the  American  galaxy.  But  do  not  urge  us 
to  admit  Missouri  under  a  pretence  of  congeniality — with  the 
visage  of  a  savage,  deformed  with  the  hideous  cicatrices  of  bar 
baric  pride,  with  her  features  marred  as  if  the  finger  of  Lucifer 
had  been  drawn  across  it." 

Mr.  PINKNEY,  of  Maryland,  in  his  speech  on  the  other  side, 
said :  "  New  States  may  be  admitted  by  Congress  into  this 
Union.  What  is  that  Union  ?  a  confederation  of  States  equal 
in  sovereignty,  capable  of  every  thing  which  the  Constitution 
does  not  forbid,  or  authorize  Congress  to  forbid.  It  is  an  equal 
union  between  parties  equally  sovereign.  *  *  By  acceding  to 
it,  the  new  State  is  placed  on  the  same  footing  as  the  original 
States.  *  *  If  it  comes  in  shorn  of  its  beams,  crippled  and 
disparaged  beyond  the  original  States — it  is  not  into  the  original 
Union  that  it  comes,  for  it  is  a  different  sort  of  union.  The  first 
was  union  inter  pares  j  this  is  a  union  between  disparates,  be 
tween  giants  and  a  dwarf,  between  power  and  feebleness,  be 
tween  full-proportioned  sovereignties  and  a  miserable  image  of 
power,  a  thing  which  that  very  union  has  shrunk  and  shrivelled 
from  its  past  size,  instead  of  preserving  it  in  its  true  dimen 
sions." 

In  the  Senate,  the  vote  for  uniting  the  two  bills  was  23  in 
favor,  and  21  against ;  Feb.  16,  1820. 

At  this  stage  of  the  business,  it  became  evident,  that  though 
the  Senate  was  willing  to  receive  Missouri  upon  an  equal  foot 
ing  with  the  other  States,  the  House  would  persist  in  excluding 
her,  unless  she  would  consent  to  come  into  the  Union  with  im 
paired  sovereignty,  and  unable  to  determine  what  some  of  her 
internal  institutions  should  be. 


80  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 


THE   COMPROMISE. 

Mr.  THOMAS,  of  Illinois,  proposed  in  the  Senate  to  amend  the 
bill,  by  striking  out  the  restrictive  clause,  to  pass  the  bill  for  the 
admission  of  Maine,  and  to  prohibit  slavery  in  all  of  the  terri 
tory  north  of  36°  30',  that  the  Northern  members  might  in  this 
way  allow  Missouri  to  come  into  the  Union  without  restriction, 
upon  the  same  footing  as  the  other  States.  His  proposal  was 
acceded  to,  and  the  amendment  was  passed  in  the  Senate,  March 
2,  1820,  by  a  vote  of  22  in  favor,  and  15  against  it.  In  the 
House  the  amendment  passed  by  a  vote  of  134  in  favor,  and  42 
against  it.  Still  Missouri  did  not  obtain  admittance  into  the 
Union. 

At  the  next  session  of  Congress,  for  the  third  time  Missouri 
presented  herself  for  admission  into  the  Union.  Maine  had 
been  admitted,  and  her  representatives  were  on  the  floor  of 
Congress.  Slavery  was  prohibited  north  of  36°  30'.  But  strange 
to  say,  the  compromise  was  not  carried  out  by  the  Northern 
members,  with  some  honorable  exceptions  ! 

On  the  question  in  the  House,  Shall  Missouri  be  admitted  on 
the  compromise  of  1820?  the  vote  stood,  Feb.  13,  1821,  88 
against  admission,  67  in  favor  of  admission.  From  Maine,  5 
against,  2  in  favor  ;  from  New  Hampshire  G,  all  against ;  from 
Massachusetts  13,  all  against ;  from  Rhode  Island  1,  and  in 
favor ;  from  Connecticut,  6  against,  and  1  in  favor ;  from  Ver 
mont  C,  all  against ;  from  New  York,  IT  against,  and  7  in 
favor  ;  from  New  Jersey,  1  against,  and  3  in  favor  ;  from  Penn 
sylvania,  22  against,  and  1  in  favor ;  from  Ohio  6,  all  against ; 
from  Indiana  1,  and  against ;  from  Illinois  1,  and  against. 

Thus  the  North  rejected  the  compromise  which  had  been 
made  March  2,  1820,  nearly  a  year  before. 

Were  the  Northern  States  faithful  to  the  compromise? 
Candor  must  admit,  as  the  above  votes  show,  that  they  were 
not.  They  had  got  their  share,  and  it  was  the  lion's  share. 
Maine  had  been  admitted  into  the  Union.  Slavery  had  been 
prohibited  by  a  stretch  of  power,  north  of  36°  30X,  upon  the  com 
promise  by  which  Missouri  was  to  be  admitted,  but  they  still 
refused  to  admit  her  into  the  Union.  One  of  their  number,  Mr. 


THE   COMPROMISE.  81 

CLARK  of  New  York,  who  had  voted  against  the  compromise, 
did  say  :  "  I  consider  myself  bound  by  the  pledge.  I  cannot 
for  a  moment  consent,  as  a  member  of  this  House,  to  observe  a 
punic  faith  even  with  Missouri."  Others  did  not  faithfully 
keep  good  faith,  but  punic  faith. 

After  the  Northern  members  had  thus  refused  to  carry  out 
the  compromise,  Mr.  BROWN,  of  Kentucky,  proposed  to  repeal 
the  act  prohibiting  slavery  north  of  30°  30X.  But  they  would  not 
consent ;  they  would  keep  the  consideration,  but  wrould  not 
carry  out  the  compromise  by  which  they  obtained  the  con 
sideration. 

The  Southern  States  regarded  the  compromise  of  1820  as  an 
agreement  between  their  members  and  the  Northern  members, 
and  they  looked  to  the  latter,  with  upbraiding  or  imploring  eyes, 
to  carry  it  out  by  the  admission  of  Missouri.  Yet  still  the 
latter  refused.  Proofs  on  both  points  are  abundant. 

Hear  Mr.  CHARLES  PINCKNEY'S  testimony.  He  was,  it  will 
be  recollected,  a  leading  member  of  the  Convention  that  formed 
the  Constitution,  and  was  at  the  present  time  a  member  of  Con 
gress  from  South  Carolina  who  voted  for  the  compromise.  "  I 
feel  authorized  to  express  this  fear  (of  the  dissolution  of  the 
Union)  by  the  fact,  that  gentlemen  in  opposition  now  throw  off 
the  veil,  and  expressly  declare  that  it  is  their  intention  to  leave, 
if  possible,  this  question  to  the  next  Congress,  to  leave  to  them,  if 
possible,  unfettered  by  any  act  of  ours,  the  power  to  decide  how 
far  the  true  interests  of  the  Union  may  then  make  it  necessary 
to  produce  anew,  and  struggle  for  the  imposition  of  the  restric 
tion  on  slavery,  which  has,  during  the  three  last  sessions,  shaken 
the  Union  to  the  very  foundations.  They  openly  avow  that  they 
do  not  consider  themselves  bound  by  the  compact  of  the  last 
year,  confining  the  restriction  to  the  north  of  36°  30',  but  aver 
if  they  have  the  strength  to  do  so,  their  intention  to  leave  the 
next  Congress  free  to  decide  it  as  they  please." 

Months  had  passed  away,  between  the  time  when  the  com 
promise  bill  had  been  passed  and  the  succeeding  session,  and 
yet  at  this  session  the  North  still  refused  to  admit  Missouri ! 

"What  was  the  real  motive  for  this  apparently  treacherous 
conduct  on  the  part  of  the  North  ?  It  was  the  desire  to  retain 
political  power.  This  was  the  temptation  to  the  political  sin 


02J  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

of  still  refusing  to  admit  Missouri  upon  the  same  footing  as  the 
original  States. 

What  was  the  pretext  for  this  delay  and  this  shirking  the 
responsibility  ?  It  was  that  Missouri  had,  in  her  constitution, 
made  provision  to  exclude  free  negroes  and  mulattoes  from  the 
State.  It  was  but  a  pretext,  because  other  States  have  been  ad 
mitted  without  resistance  or  objection,  in  whose  constitutions 
there  were  similar  provisions ;  and  Massachusetts  had  placed 
similar  provisions  on  her  statute  book  as  early  as  1788,  just 
after  the  ratification  of  the  Constitution. 

Missouri  was  finally  admitted  February  28,  1821.  Petitions 
for  the  admission  of  Missouri  were  presented  March  16,  1818. 
A  bill  was  introduced  into  the  House  to  enable  Missouri  to 
form  a  State  government,  February  13,  1819.  The  restriction 
was  moved  February  17,  1819.  It  thus  took  more  than  three 
years  from  the  first-mentioned  date,  and  more  than  two  years 
from  the  second  date,  to  procure  the  admission  of  Missouri. 
She  was  finally  admitted  upon  a  vote  of  86  in  favor  and  82 
against.  Of  the  Northern  States,  New  Hampshire  cast  no  vote 
in  favor ;  Massachusetts,  two  votes ;  Connecticut,  one  vote ; 
Vermont,  no  vote  in  favor ;  New  York,  seven  ;  New  Jersey, 
two ;  Pennsylvania,  four  votes.  Not  a  single  Northern  State 
gave  its  vote  in  favor  of  the  admission  of  Missouri.  Of  the 
Northern  votes  cast  in  favor  of  the  admission  of  Missouri  upon 
the  final  vote,  some  were  due  to  the  sense  of  constitutional  right 
which  Missouri  had  to  admission  upon  the  original  footing  of 
other  States,  expressed  in  the  early  part  of  the  debates  ;  others 
were  due  to  the  compromise,  to  which  they  remained  faithful ; 
others  still  were  due  to  political  considerations  of  a  patriotic  or 
party  character. 

"  For  a  while,"  says  Benton,  in  his  "  Thirty  Years'  Yiew," 
"this  formidable  Missouri  question  threatened  the  total  over 
throw  of  all  political  parties  or  principles,  and  the  substitution 
of  geographical  parties,  discriminated  by  a  slave  line,  and  of 
course  destroying  the  first  and  proper  action  of  the  Federal 
Government,  and  leading  eventually  to  a  separation  of  the 
States.  It  was  a  Federal  movement,  accruing  to  the  benefit  of 
that  party,  and  at  first  was  overwhelming,  sweeping  all  the 
Northern  Democracy  into  its  current,  and  giving  the  supremacy 


REMARKS.  83 

to  its  adversaries.  When  tins  effect  was  perceived,  the  North- 
eni  Democracy  became  alarmed,  and  only  wanted  a  turn  in  the 
popular  feeling  at  home,  to  take  the  first  opportunity  to  get  rid 
of  the  question  by  admitting  the  State,  and  reestablishing  party 
lines  upon  the  basis  of  political  principles.  This  was  the  de 
cided  feeling  when  I  arrived  at  "Washington,  and  many  of  the 
old  Northern  Democracy  took  early  opportunity  to  declare 
themselves  to  me  to  that  eifect,  and  showed  that  they  were 
ready  to  vote  for  the  admission  of  the  State  in  any  form  that 
would  answer  the  purpose,  and  save  themselves  from  going  so 
far  as  to  lose  their  own  State,  and  give  the  ascendant  to  their 
political  adversaries." 

But  patriotic  considerations  also  operated  upon  another  class 
of  minds  to  induce  them  to  vote  for  the  admission  of  Missouri. 
The  whole  country  was  agitated  and  threatened  with  disunion. 
By  voting  to  admit,  the  agitation  would  cease,  and  the  danger 
of  disunion  be  removed. 

Members  of  Congress  from  Northern  States,  who  voted  for  the 
admission  of  Missouri,  were  influenced  :  1,  by  a  regard  for  the 
constitutional  right  of  Missouri  to  come  into  the  Union  upon 
the  same  footing  as  the  original  States ;  or  2,  by  a  regard  for 
the  Democratic  party ;  or  3,  by  a  regard  for  the  peace  and 
union  of  the  country ;  or  4,  by  a  regard  to  the  compromise. 
There  was  at  least  one,  Mr.  CLARK,  of  New  York,  who  was  in 
fluenced  by  the  last  consideration,  though  he  did  not  vote  for 
the  compromise.  How  many  are  to  be  classed  with  him  it  is 
difficult  to  say. 

It  is  remarkable  that  every  man  belonging  to  New  England, 
in  the  Lower  House,  who  voted  to  admit  Missouri,  was  ostra 
cized  from  the  confidence  of  the  public,  by  the  intolerant  or  un 
forgiving  spirit  which  prevailed.  It  was  said  of  Mr.  SHAW,  one 
of  them,  that  he  was  killed  by  the  negroes,  and  that  Mr.  DWIGHT, 
of  the  same  State,  was  killed  by  the  Indians,  (in  the  Georgia  case.) 

I  have  seen  no  proof  that  New  England  was  ever  reconciled 
to  the  admission  of  Missour' 

REMARKS. 

1.  Mr.  MONROE  was  the  last  of  the  Virginia  dynasty.  When 
he  went  out  of  office  in  1825,  the  Government  under  the  Con- 


84:  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

stitution  had  been  in  operation  thirty-six  years,  during  which 
period  a  Virginian  had  been  at  the  head  of  the  Government 
thirty-two  years.  WASHINGTON,  JEFFERSON,  MADISON,  and  MON- 
EOE,  were  each  worthy  of  the  place.  But  there  grew  up,  natu 
rally,  in  the  breasts  of  Northern  men,  a  bitter  jealousy  of  the 
South,  and  especially  of  Virginia,  whose  sons  had  for  so  long  a 
time  occupied  the  Presidential  chair.  These  men  had  been 
elected  to  office  by  controlling  Southern  votes,  aided,  indeed,  in 
each  case,  by  votes  of  the  North,  and  in  one  case,  by  all  the 
electoral  votes  of  the  North.  At  six  successive  elections,  North 
ern  men  had  brought  forward  their  Presidential  candidates  only 
to  suffer  defeat  and  mortification.  As  a  consequence,  there 
grew  up  a  strong  desire  to  lessen  the  influence  of  the  slavehold- 
ing  States,  and  to  prevent  the  increase  of  their  number.  The 
Northern  States  were  under  the  influence  of  a  great  political 
temptation  to  do  a  great  political  wrong  to  Missouri  and  the 
slave  States. 

The  people  of  the  North,  generally,  were  prepared  to  enter 
into  the  feelings  of  their  political  leaders,  in  opposing  the  in 
crease  of  the  political  power  of  the  South  ;  and,  in  their  desire 
to  extend  to  all  men  the  enjoyment  of  their  natural  rights,  they 
were  ready  to  overlook  the  constitutional  rights  of  Missouri. 

2.  In  order  to  show  the  true  state  of  the  case,  in  the  estima 
tion  of  enlightened  statesmen,  I  quote  the  following  extract 
from  a  speech  of  JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS,  delivered  in  Congress, 
1835,  in  favor  of  the  admission  of  Arkansas,  whose  constitution 
was  offered  for  acceptance ;  it  being  of  the  same  character  as 
that  of  Missouri,  both  of  them  permitting  slavery  :  "  Mr.  Chair 
man, — I  cannot,  consistently  wTith  my  sense  of  obligation  as  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  bound  by  oath  to  support  their 
Constitution,  I  cannot  object  to  the  admission  of  Arkansas  into 
the  Union  as  a  slave  State.  I  cannot  propose  or  agree  to  make 
it  a  condition  of  her  admission  into  the  Union,  that  a  conven 
tion  of  her  people  shall  expunge  this  article  from  the  Constitu 
tion.  She  is  entitled  to  admission  as  a  slave  State."  The  argu 
ment  against  the  admission  of  Missouri,  from  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  that  "  all  men  are  created  equal,"  is  irrelevant. 
The  argument  from  the  power  of  Congress  to  make  "  needful 
rules  and  regulations  in  respect  to  the  Territory  and  other  prop- 


EEMAKKS.  85 

erty,"  is  irrelevant,  for  this  "  power  "  relates  to  property.  The 
argument  from  the  clause,  "  New  States  may  be  admitted  by 
Congress  into  the  Union,"  is  all  on  the  other  side,  from  the  very 
meaning  of  the  terms.  The  House,  therefore,  was  wrong  in  im 
posing  the  restriction  as  the  condition  of  admitting  Missouri, 
and  the  Senate  was  right  in  voting  to  admit  her  without  this 
restriction.  Thus  much  in  regard  to  RESTRICTION. 

3.  But  did  the  North  act  honorably  in  respect  to  the  COM- 
PEOMISE  ?     This  compromise  was  proposed  by  a  Northern  man, 
and  was  accepted  by  Southern  men  and  by  Northern  men  ;  and 
yet  it  was  not  adhered  to  by  Northern  men,  after  the  Nortli 
had  received  the  advantage  of  admitting  the  State  of  Maine, 
and  after  slavery  had  been  prohibited  north  of  36°  30;.     When 
Missouri  a  third  time  had  presented  herself  for  admittance  with 
this  compact  or  compromise  in  her  hand,  she  was  again  rejected 
by  a  vote  of  87  against  admission,  and  G7  in  favor  of  it. 

4.  The  difference  between  the  "  restriction  "  and  the  "  com 
promise,"  has  not  been  well  understood.     "  No  words,"  says 
BENTON,  in  his  "  Debates,"  "  have  been  more  confounded  than 
those  of  the  restriction  and  the  compromise ;  so  much  so,  that 
some  of  the  eminent  speakers  of  the  time  have  had  their  speeches 
against  the  restriction  quoted  as  being  against  the  compromise, 
of  which  they  were  zealous  advocates.     Though  confounded,  no 
two  measures  could  be  more  opposite  in  their  nature  and  effects. 
The  restriction  was  to  operate  on  a  State,  the  compromise  on  a 
Territory.     The  restriction  was  to  prevent  the  State  of  Missouri 
from  admitting  slavery  ;  the  compromise  was  to  admit  slavery 
there,  and  to  divide  the  rest  of  Louisiana  about  equally  between 
free  and  slave  soil.     The  restriction  came  from  the  North,  the 
compromise  from  the  South.     The  restriction  raised  the  storm, 
the  compromise  allayed  it." 

5.  One  of  the  most  unfortunate  circumstances  attending  the 
debate  was,  that  some  of  the  Northern  members  used  intemper 
ate  and  insulting  language  towards  the  Southern  men  and  South 
ern  institutions,  which  were  not  soon  forgotten.     Instead  of  dis 
cussing  constitutional  questions,  by  referring  to  the  Constitution 
as  the  sole  ground  of  argument,  they  uttered  the  language  of  in 
vective  and  sarcasm  against  slavery  itself,  if  not  against  slave 
holders.     Such  men  as  Eurus  KING  and  HARBISON  GEAY  OTIS 


86  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

were  not  guilty  of  these  improprieties.  But  there  were  others 
who  drew  from  their  quiver  arrows  envenomed  by  hatred,  and 
sent  them,  at  random  or  with  deliberate  aim,  to  rankle  in  the 
breast  of  the  South.  And  the  effect  of  their  speeches  upon  the 
North  was  to  kindle  up  a  bitter  and  intolerant  spirit.  The 
present  writer  remembers  that,  in  a  most  respectable  Northern 
city,  during  the  discussions  respecting  the  admittance  of  Missouri, 
a  small  company  of  boys  were  employed  to  carry  through  the 
streets,  on  a  flag,  the  picture  of  a  chained  African,  uttering  the 
words,  "  Am  I  not  a  man  and  a  brother  ?  "  and  also  another, 
in  which  the  "  noble  Virginians  "  were  represented,  with,  up 
raised  whips,  driving  the  negroes  at  their  field  work.  In  this 
way,  but  more  especially  by  speeches  and  inflammatory  articles 
in  newspapers,  the  passions  of  the  people  of  the  North  were 
kindled  into  indignation. 

6.  To  men  of  this  generation   it   may  seem  strange,  that 
worthy  men  in  both  Houses  should  refuse  to  vote  for  the  admis 
sion  of  Missouri  upon  the  grounds  alleged,  and  for  the  reasons 
given.     But  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  real  reason  was 
the  fear  of  increasing  the  political  power  of  the  South.     Under 
the  influence  of  this  fear,  on  the  part  of  demagogues  in  Con 
gress,  the  evils  of  slavery  were  magnified,  and  the  constitutional 
powers   of   Congress   were   distorted,   until   the   members,   in 
given  cases,  felt  that  they  should  commit  political  suicide  by 
voting  for  the  measure  of  admitting  Missouri.    .It  was  easier  to 
excite  the  masses  than  it  was  to  calm  the  excitement.     In  some 
cases  they  did  commit  political   suicide.     They  voted  for  the 
measure,  but  their  constituents  never  forgave  them.     Some  of 
the  State  Legislatures  passed  resolutions  against  the  measure, 
which  might  operate  to  prevent  the  members  from  those  States 
from  acting  in  the  premises,  according  to  their  own  judgment. 

7.  Did  Congress  act  Constitutionally  in  prohibiting  slavery 
north  of  36°  30'  ?     This  question  did  not  come  up  in  a  very  dis 
tinct  form  for  discussion,  though  there  were  those,  Mr.  RANDOLPH 
among  them,  who  refused  to  vote  for  the  compromise  on  that 
ground.      His  penetrating  mind  saw  the  constitutional  objec 
tion.     But  the  Senate  and  the  House  were  in  an  awkward  rela 
tion  to  each  other,  each  insisting  on  its  own  bill.     Missouri, 
with  great  reason,  complained  of  the  treatment  she  had  experi- 


KEMAKKS.  87 

enced.  Maine  was  clamoring  for  admission.  The  whole  coun 
try  was  agitated.  The  power  of  Congress  was  greater  over 
Territory  than  over  States.  The  ordinance  of  1787,  which  ex 
cluded  slavery,  was  remembered,  while  the  difference  between 
the  two  cases  was  not  insisted  on.  Congress  was  tired  of  the 
subject.  Some  thought,  perhaps,  that  it  was  best  to  do  a  great 
right  and  a  little  wrong.  The  bill,  as  amended,  came  from  the 
Senate  without  very  much  discussion  in  that  body,  into  the 
House,  March  2,  1820,  and  was  passed  the  same  day. 

The  subject  has  since  been  more  carefully  examined,  and 
the  conviction  has  been  produced  upon  some  of  the  ablest  states 
men  of  the  land,  that  the  Constitution  gives  no  power  to  inter 
dict  slavery  in  the  Territories. 

The  restriction  of  slavery  in  Missouri  as  the  condition  of 
admission  into  the  Union,  with  the  delay,  after  the  restriction 
was  struck  out,  of  the  bill,  on  the  ground  of  an  invidious  dis 
tinction  between  the  States,  opened  a  fountain  of  sectional  feel 
ing,  the  bitter  waters  from  which  at  the  time  deluged  the  land. 
These  waters  from  that  fountain  have  not  yet  ceased  to  flow. 


CHAPTER  VHL 

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS'  ADMINISTRATION. 

MARCH  4,  1825— MARCH  4,  1829. 

MR.  ADAMS  was  elected  by  the  House  of  Representatives 
over  General  JACKSON,  there  having  been  a  failure  to  make  an 
election  of  President  by  the  electoral  votes.  The  friends  of 
Mr.  CLAY  united  with  the  friends  of  Mr.  ADAMS  in  placing  the 
latter  in  the  Presidential  chair ;  though  General  JACKSON  had 
the  largest  vote  of  the  electors. 

Mr.  ADAMS  had  large  experience  and  undoubted  honesty  as 
a  statesman,  but  was  inclined  to  a  broad  interpretation  of  the 
Constitution  ;  and,  like  Mr.  CLAY,  was  in  favor  of  a  high  tariff, 
as  was  supposed.  It  was  very  natural  that  Mr.  CLAY  should 
unite  his  political  fortunes  with  him,  in  preference  to  General 
JACKSON  ;  but  by  doing  so,  they  both  lost  some  share  of  the 
public  confidence,  especially  from  the  circumstance  that  Mr. 
CLAY  accepted  of  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State  under  him. 
Sectional  feelings  were  strongly  excited  during  the  Presidential 
contest,  and  especially  during  the  administration  of  Mr.  ADAMS. 
The  protective  policy,  sanctioned  by  the  tariff  act  of  1824,  en 
tered  now,  for  the  first  time,  into  a  Presidential  contest. 

THE  TARIFF   OF   1828. 

Previous  to  the  year  1816,  protection  to  American  manu 
factures  had  been  incidental.  The  Constitution  gave  Congress 
power  to  raise  a  revenue,  but  not  to  encourage  one  branch  of 


THE   TAEIFF   OF    1828.  89 

industry  to  the  injury  of  another.  As  the  powers  granted  by 
that  instrument  do  not  allow  Congress  to  protect  manufactures 
directly,  they  were  forced  to  depend  on  such  an  amount  of  protec 
tion  as  they  could  incidentally  receive  from  the  imposition  of 
duties  for  revenue.  By  a  judicious  discrimination  as  to  what 
imported  articles  should  be  dutied,  and  what  should  be  the  duty 
011  each  class,  the  American  manufacturer  had  the  advantage 
of  the  foreign  manufacturer  of  the  same  class  of  articles,  by  the 
amount  of  the  duty  paid  added  to  the  expense  of  transportation ; 
while  the  consumer  could  not  complain,  because  what  he  paid 
additional  to  what  he  would  have  to  pay  for  the  same  articles  if 
imported  duty  free,  he  paid  only  as  revenue  for  the  support  of 
the  Government. 

But  in  1816  a  new  policy  was  adopted.  It  had  been  found 
by  the  experience  of  the  war,  that  the  country  had  suffered 
great  inconvenience  from  depending  on  foreign  manufactures. 
Accordingly,  patriotism  was  appealed  to  for  the  support  of  do 
mestic  manufactures,  which  would  render  the  country  more  in 
dependent  of  foreign  nations.  Besides,  a  large  amount  of  capi 
tal  had  been  embarked  in  manufactures,  which,  at  peace  prices, 
with  foreign  competition,  could  not  be  sustained.  The  national 
debt  must  be  paid.  In  this  state  of  things  the  tariff  law  of  1816 
was  enacted,  the  opposition  to  it  being  based  chiefly  on  the 
ground  that  it  would  produce  an  injurious  effect  upon  com 
merce. 

In  1824  a  bill  was  passed,  giving  still  further  protection  to 
manufactures.  It  was  in  support  of  this  bill  that  Mr.  CLAY. 
made  his  celebrated  speech  in  favor  of  what,  by  a  strange  mis 
nomer,  he  called  "  an  American  system."  It  was  the  privilege 
of  the  present  writer  to  hear  that  speech,  and,  indeed,  all  the 
speeches  of  importance  delivered  that  session  on  the  subject  of 
the  tariff.  In  a  very  taking  and  persuasive  statement  of  the 
present  distress  of  the  country  and  the  necessity  of  a  change  of 
policy  in  favor  of  manufactures,  he  presented  the  general  and 
special  arguments  in  favor  of  a  protective  tariff.  He  was  aided 
by  manufacturers  or  their  agents,  who  were  present  to  furnish 
him,  and  others  united  with  him,  with  facts  which  would 
operate  on  the  minds  of  members  to  induce  them  to  favor  do 
mestic  industry  employed  in  the  manufacturing  business.  A 


90  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTKOVERSY. 

political  party,  if  not  formed  already,  was  about  to  be  formed 
on  this  issue  among  others.  Mr.  CLAY  was  still  regarded  as  a 
democrat ;  and  such  was  his  patriotism  and  his  eminent  per 
sonal  qualities,  such  were  his  eloquence  and  powers  of  reasoning, 
that  he  had  great  influence  in  carrying  the  bill  through  the 
House,  notwithstanding  the  vigorous  opposition  against  it. 

Mr.  WEBSTEK  was  opposed  to  the  bill,  and,  in  his  reply,  was 
more  than  equal  to  Mr.  CLAY  in  his  arguments,  and  hardly  in 
ferior  in  eloquence.  Massachusetts  went  against  the  bill  with 
the  South ;  but  it  was  carried  by  a  vote  in  the  House  of  107  to 
102,  and  in  the  Senate  of  25  to  20.  "With  other  distinguished 
men  wTho  were  opposed  to  the  "  new  policy,"  inaugurated  by 
Mr.  CLAY,  and  so  characterized  by  him,  was  RUFUS  KING. 

Mr.  CLAY  saw  clearly  that  it  would  be  opposed  by  Southern 
members,  because  it  sacrificed  the  interests  of  their  constituents 
for  the  benefit  of  other  States.  He  spoke  of  the  importance  of 
preserving  the  harmony  of  the  whole  Union.  He  remarked 
that  "  if  the  North,  the  East,  and  the  West  formed  an  independ 
ent  State,  unassociated  with  the  South,  can  there  be  a  doubt 
that  the  restrictive  system  w^ould  be  carried  to  the  point  of  pro 
hibition  of  every  foreign  fabric  of  which  they  produce  the  raw 
material,  and  which  they  could  manufacture  ?  Such  would  be 
their  policy  if  alone ;  but  they  are  fortunately  connected  with 
the  South,  which  believes  its  interest  to  require  a  free  admission 
of  foreign  manufacture."  Mr.  CLAY  evidently  intended  to  act 
in  the  most  conciliatory  manner  towards  the  South  ;  but  he 
also  was  determined  to  carry  the  measure. 

Mr.  McDuFFiE,  in  one  of  his  speeches,  said  "  that  the  honor 
able  Speaker  had  remarked  that,  in  the  legislation  of  this  coun 
try,  the  most  scrupulous  regard  should  be  had  to  the  general 
harmony.  But  he  put  it  to  the  Speaker  whether  it  was  not  the 
introduction  of  such  a  bill  which  was  likely  to  disturb  that  har 
mony,  rather  than  its  discussion."  He  went  on  to  show  that  it 
is  a  question  distinctly  arraying  against  each  other  the  two  dif 
ferent  sections  of  the  Confederacy.  All  the  arguments  by  wrhich 
the  proposed  duty  is  supported  have  been,  therefore,  and  neces 
sarily  must  be,  of  a  sectional  character.  "  When  gentlemen  are 
attempting  by  legislation  to  affect  the  interests  of  the  two  sec 
tions  of  the  TJnion  relatively  to  each  other,  how  can  they  throw 


THE   TARIFF   OF    1828-  91 

upon  us  the  responsibility  of  that  feeling,  which  the  discussion 
may  excite  ? " 

Mr.  WEBSTER  replied  to  Mr.  CLAY  on  another  point,  in  a 
manner  equally  triumphant.  "  On  the  general  question,  sir, 
allow  me  to  ask  if  the  doctrine  of  prohibition,  as  a  general  doc 
trine,  be  not  preposterous  ?  Suppose  all  nations  to  act  upon  it, 
they  would  be  prosperous  then  precisely  in  proportion  as  they 
abolished  intercourse  with  one  another.  The  less  of  mutual 
commerce  they  had  the  better,  upon  this  hypothesis.  Protec 
tion  and  encouragement  may  be,  and  are,  doubtless,  sometimes 
wise  and  beneficial,  if  kept  within  proper  limits  ;  but  when  car 
ried  to  an  extravagant  height,  or  the  point  of  prohibition,  the 
absurd  character  of  the  system  manifests  itself." 

Notwithstanding  the  very  able  argumentation  against  the 
bill,  it  passed  as  already  stated,  by  a  small  majority.  Mr.  CLAY 
became  identified  with  the  protective  system.  It  became  a  set 
tled  matter  that  he  should  promote  the  interests  of  the  manufac 
turers,  and  that  they  should  act  politically  under  his  leadership. 

Jn  JILL'S,  the  manufacturers  applied  to  Congress  for  still  fur 
ther  protection.  They  previously  held  a  convention  in  Harris- 
burg,  wliicn  met  July  30,  1827,  in  which  the  subject  of  pro 
tection  was  discussed  with  great  earnestness  ;  and  having  settled 
that  question  to  their  own  satisfaction,  they  addressed  Congress 
in  a  memorial,  in  which  they  asked  for  a  large  increase  of  duties. 

In  the  mean  time  Massachusetts,  and  New  England  gen 
erally,  though  extensively  opposed  to  the  tariff  of  1824,  had  ex 
perienced  a  change  in  their  interests  or  in  their  political  pur 
poses,  so  that  they  were  disposed  to  go  for  higher  protective* 
duties.  Mr.  WEBSTER,  who  had  supported  the  interests  of  com 
merce,  in  opposition  to  the  interests  of  manufactures,  was  now 
ready  to  vote  for  a  jbigh_  tariff  bilL  for  the  benefit  of  corporate 
capital. 

The  Southern  States,  thus  deserted  by  New  England,  became, 
greatly  alarmed  at  the  impending  additional  burdens  which' 
were  to  be  imposed  on  their  industry.  The  President,  and  the 
Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  CLAY,  were  in  favor  of  protection,  as 
were  a  majority  of  both  Houses  in  Congress.  But  such  men  as 
JOHN  KANDOLPH,  Mr.  McDurFiE,  General  HAMILTON,  P.  P. 
BARBOUR,  and  others,  made  very  able  speeches  against  the  bill, 


92  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

showing  up  the  fallacies  of  the  Harrisburg  address,  and  the 
wrong  of  taxing  one  part  of  the  country  for  the  benefit  of  an 
other  part,  beyond  what  is  necessary  for  the  purposes  of  rev 
enue.  The  bill,  however,  was  passed  April  22,  1828,  by  a  vote 
of  105  to  94. 

On  the  passage  of  the  bill,  Mr.  WILDE  moved  to  amend  the 
title,  by  adding  the  words,  "  and  for  the  encouragement  of  do 
mestic  manufactures."  Mr.  RANDOLPH  opposed  the  amend 
ment,  and  said  if  the  bill  had  its  true  name,  it  should  be  called, 
"  A  bill  to  rob  and  plunder  nearly  one-half  of  the  country  for 
the  benefit  of  the  residue."  Mr.  DRAYTON  proposed  to  strike  out 
all  after  "  An  act,"  and  to  insert,  "  to  increase  the  duties  upon 
certain  imports,  for  the  purpose  of  increasing  the  profits  of  cer 
tain  manufactures."  It  would  not  have  been  decorous  to  pro 
pose  the  additional  amendment,  "  and  to  make  a  certain  man 
President." 

PROTEST   OF    GEORGIA. 

Like  the  tariff  act  of  1824,  but  with  much  greater  empnasis, 
this  tariff  act  of  1828  was  passed  in  opposition  to  the  determined 
opposition  of  the  Southern  States,  an  opposition  which  continued 
to  manifest  itself  during  its  operation.  A  protest  against  it  by 
the  Legislature  of  Georgia,  was  introduced  into  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States,  through  the  Yice-President,  January  12, 
1829,  of  wThich  the  following  is  an  extract :  "  In.  her  sovereign 
character,  the  State  of  Georgia  protests  against  the  act  of  the 
last  session  of  Congress,  entitled,  '  An  act  in  alteration  of  the 
several  acts  imposing  duties  on  imports,'  as  deceptive  in  its 
title,  fraudulent  in  its  pretexts,  oppressive  in  its  exactions,  par 
tial  and  unjust  in  its  operation,  unconstitutional  in  its  well- 
known  objects,  ruinous  to  commerce  and  agriculture,  to  secure 
a  hateful  monopoly  to  a  combination  of  importunate  manufac 
turers. 

"  Demanding  the  repeal  of  an  act  which  has  already  dis 
turbed  the  Union  and  endangered  the  public  tranquillity,  weak 
ened  the  confidence  of  the  whole  States  in  the  Federal  Govern 
ment,  and  diminished  the  affection  of  large  masses  of  the  people 
to  the  Union  itself,  and  the  abandonment  of  the  degrading  sys 
tem  which  considers  the  people  as  incapable  of  wisely  directing 


PROTEST   OF   GEORGIA.  93 

their  own  enterprise,  winch  sets  up  the  servants  of  the  people  in 
Congress  as  the  exclusive  judges  of  what  pursuits  are  most  ad 
vantageous  and  suitable  for  those  by  whom  they  were  elected, 
the  State  of  Georgia  expects  that,  in  perpetual  testimony  there 
of,  the  deliberate  and  solemn  expression  of  her  opinion  will  be 
carefully  kept  in  the  archives  of  the  Senate  ;  and  in  justification 
of  her  character  to  the  present  generation  and  to  posterity,  if, 
unfortunately,  Congress,  disregarding  the  protest,  and  continu 
ing  to  pervert  powers  granted  for  clearly  defined  and  well-un 
derstood  purposes,  to  effectuate  objects  never  intended  by  the 
great  parties  by  whom  the  Constitution  was  framed,  to  be  in 
trusted  to  the  controlling  guardianship  of  the  Federal  Govern 
ment,  should  render  necessary  measures  of  a  more  decisive  char 
acter,  for  the  protection  of  the  people  of  the  State,  and  the  vin 
dication  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States." 

Mr.  BERRIEX,  on  the  occasion  of  its  presentation,  made, 
among  other  remarks,  the  following  :  "  Forty  years  of  success 
ful  experiment  have  proved  the  efficiency  of  this  Government  to 
sustain  us  in  an  honorable  intercourse  with  the  other  nations  of 
the  world.  Externally  in  peace  and  in  war,  amid  the  fluctua 
tions  of  commerce  and  the  strife  of  arms,  it  has  protected  our 
interests  and  defended  our  rights.  One  trial,  one  fearful  trial, 
remains  to  be  made.  It  is  one,  under  the  apprehension  of  which 
the  bravest  may  tremble,  which  the  wise  and  the  good  will 
anxiously  endeavor  to  avoid.  It  is  that  experiment  which  shall 
test  the  competency  of  this  Government  to  preserve  our  internal 
peace,  whenever  a  question,  vitally  affecting  the  bond  which 
unites  us  as  one  people,  shall  come  to  be  solemnly  agitated  be 
tween  the  sovereign  members  of  this  Confederacy.  In  propor 
tion  to  its  dangers  should  be  our  solicitude  to  avoid  it,  by  ab 
staining  on  the  one  hand  from  acts  of  doubtful  legislation,  as 
well  as  by  the  manner  of  resistance  on  the  other,  to  those  which 
arc  deemed  unconstitutional.  Between  the  independent  mem 
bers  of  this  Confederacy,  sir,  there  can  be  no  common  arbiter. 
They  are  necessarily  remitted  to  their  own  sovereign  will,  delib 
erately  expressed,  in  the  exercise  of  those  reserved  rights  of 
sovereignty,  the  delegation  of  which  would  have  been  an  act  of 
political  suicide.  The  designation  of  such  an  arbiter,  sir,  was, 
by  the  force  of  invincible  necessity,  casus  omissus  among  the 


1)1  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

provisions  of  a  Constitution  conferring  limited  powers,  tlie  in 
terpretation  of  which  was  to  be  confided  to  the  subordinate 
agents,  created  by  those  who  were  intrusted  to  administer  it. 

"  I  earnestly  hope  that  the  wise  and  conciliatory  spirit  of 
this  Government,  and  of  those  of  the  several  States,  will  post 
pone  to  a  period  far  distant,  the  day  that  will  summon  us  to  so 
fearful  a  trial.  If,  indeed,  we  are  doomed  to  encounter  it,  I  as 
earnestly  hope  that  it  may  be  entered  upon  in  the  spirit  of 
peace,  and  with  cherished  recollections  of  former  amity." 

PROTEST   OF    SOUTH   CAROLINA. 

February  10,  1829. — Mr.  W.  SMITH,  Senator,  presented  to 
the  Senate  the  protest  of  South  Carolina  against  the  tariff  act 
of  1828,  for  the  following  reasons  : 

"  1.  Because  the  good  people  of  this  commonwealth  believe 
the  powers  of  Congress  were  delegated  to  it  in  trust  for  the  ac 
complishment  of  certain  specified  objects,  which  limit  and  con 
trol  them,  and  that  every  exercise  of  them  for  any  other  purpose 
is  a  violation  of  the  Constitution,  as  unwarrantable  as  the  un 
disguised  assumption  of  substantive  powers,  not  granted  or  ex 
pressly  withheld. 

"  2.  Because  the  power  to  lay  duties  on  imports  is,  and  in 
its  very  nature  can  be,  only  the  means  of  effecting  the  objects 
specified  in  the  Constitution  ;  since  no  free  Government,  and, 
least  of  all,  a  Government  of  enumerated  powers,  can  of  right 
impose  any  tax  (any  more  than  a  penalty)  which  is  not  at  once 
justified  by  public  necessity,  and  clearly  within  the  scope  and 
province  of  the  social  compact ;  and  since  the  right  of  confining 
appropriations  of  the  public  nioney  to  such  legitimate  and  con 
stitutional  objects  is  as  essential  to  the  liberties  of  the  people,  as 
their  unquestionable  privilege  to  be  taxed  only  by  their  own 
consent. 

"  3.  Because  they  believe  that  the  tariff  law,  passed  by  Con 
gress  at  its  last  session,  and  all  other  acts  of  which  the  principal 
object  is  the  protection  of  manufactures,  or  any  other  branch  of 
domestic  industry — if-  they  be  considered  as  the  exercise  of 
a  supposed  power  in  Congress  to  tax  at  its  own  good  will  and 
pleasure  and  to  apply  the  money  raised  to  objects  not  specified 


PROTEST  OF  SOUTH  CAROLINA.  95 

in  the  Constitution — is  a  violation  of  these  fundamental  princi 
ples,  a  breach  of  a  well-defined  trust,  and  a  perversion  of  the 
high  powers  vested  in  the  Federal  Government  for  Federal  pur 
poses  only. 

"  4.  Because  such  acts  considered  in  the  light  of  a  regula 
tion  of  commerce,  are  equally  liable  to  objection  ;  since,  although 
the  power  to  regulate  commerce  may,  like  other  powers,  be  ex 
ercised  so  as  to  protect  domestic  manufactures,  yet  it  is  clearly 
distinguished  from  a  power  to  do  so  co  nomine,  both  in  the  na 
ture  of  the  thing,  and  in  the  common  acceptation  of  the  terms ; 
and  because  the  confounding  of  them  would  lead  to  the  most 
extravagant  results  ;  since  the  encouragement  of  domestic  indus 
try  implies  an  absolute  control  over  all  the  interests,  resources, 
and  pursuits  of  a  people,  and  is  inconsistent  with  the  idea  of 
any  other  than  a  simple  consolidated  Government. 

"  5.  Because,  from  contemporaneous  expositions  of  the  Con 
stitution  in  the  numbers  of  the  Federalist,  (which  is  cited  only  be 
cause  the  Supreme  Court  has  recognized  its  authority,)  it  is  clear 
that  to  regulate  commerce  was  considered  by  the  Convention 
as  only  incidentally  connected  with  the  encouragement  of  agri 
culture  and  manufactures  ;  and  because  the  laying  imposts  and 
duties  on  imports  was  not  understood  to  justify,  in  any  case,  a 
prohibition  of  foreign  commodities,  except  as  a  means  of  extend 
ing  commerce  by  coercing  foreign  nations  to  a  fair  reciprocity 
in  their  intercourse  with  us,  or  for  some  other  bona  fide  com 
mercial  purpose. 

"  G.  Because,  whilst  the  power  to  protect  manufactures  is 
nowhere  expressly  granted  to  Congress,  nor  can  be  considered 
as  necessary  and  proper  to  carry  into  effect  any  specified  power, 
it  seems  to  be  expressly  reserved  to  the  States  by  the  tenth  sec 
tion  of  the  first  article  of  the  Constitution. 

"  7.  Because,  even  admitting  Congress  have  a  constitutional 
right  to  protect  manufactures  by  the  imposition  of  duties,  or  by 
regulations  of  commerce,  designed  principally  for  that  purpose, 
yet  a  tariff,  the  operation  of  which  is  grossly  unequal  and  op 
pressive,  is  such  an  abuse  of  power  as  is  incompatible  with  the 
principles  of  a  free  Government  and  the  great  end  of  civil  socie 
ty,  and  equality  of  rights  and  protection. 

"  8.  Finally,  because  South  Carolina,  from  her  climate,  situ- 


96  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

ation,  and  peculiar  institutions,  is,  and  must  ever  continue  to 
be,  wholly  dependent  upon  agriculture  and  commerce,  not  only 
for  her  prosperity,  but  for  her  very  existence  as  a  State  ;  because 
the  valuable  products  of  her  soil,  the  blessings  by  which  Divine 
Providence  seems  to  have  designed  to  compensate  for  the  dis 
advantages  under  wrhich  she  suffers  in  other  respects,  are  among 
the  very  few  that  can  be  cultivated  by  slave  labor  ;  and  if,  by 
the  loss  of  her  foreign  commerce,  those  products  should  be  con- 
lined  to  an  inadequate  market,  the  fate  of  this  fertile  State 
would  be  poverty  and  utter  desolation  ;  her  citizens,  in  despair, 
would  emigrate  to  more  fortunate  regions,  and  the  whole  frame 
of  her  civil  polity  be  impaired  and  deranged,  if  not  dissolved 
entirely. 

"  Deeply  impressed  with  these  considerations,  the  represent 
atives  of  the  good  people  of  this  commonwealth,  anxiously  de 
siring  to  live  in  peace  with  their  fellow-citizens,  and  to  do  all 
that  in  them  lies  to  preserve  and  perpetuate  the  union  of  the 
States,  and  the  liberties  of  which  it  is  the  surest  pledge ;  but 
feeling  it  to  be  their  boundcn  duty  to  expose  and  resist  all  en 
croachments  upon  the  true  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  lest  an  ap 
parent  acquiescence  in  the  system  of  protecting  duties  should 
be  drawn  into  precedent,  do,  in  the  name  of  the  commonwealth 
of  South  Carolina,  claim  fo  enter  upon  the  journals  of  the  Sen 
ate  their  protest  against  it,  as  unconstitutional,  oppressive,  and 
unjust." 

Mr.  SMITH,  who  was  a  distinguished  member  of  the  first 
Congress,  and  enjoyed  the  confidence  and  friendship  of  ALEX 
ANDER  HAMILTON,  in  presenting  the  protest,  among  other  things 
said :  "  South  Carolina  believed  that  when,  as  a  sovereign 
State,  she  surrendered  a  portion  of  her  authority,  it  was  for  cer 
tain  and  specified  objects ;  and  that,  when  those  objects  were 
accomplished,  the  authority  ceded  to  the  General  Government 
was  at  an  end  ;  that  any  measures  pursued  beyond  the  objects 
just  contemplated  was  a  violation  of  the  compact :  it  belonged 
to  the  States  to  resume  their  authority.  South  Carolina  did  not 
assent  to  the  postulate  that  the  authority  was  ever  delegated  to 
the  Government,  which  the  Government  had  assumed  over  in 
dividuals  and  property  composing  the  State. 

"  We  had  been  told  that  the  high  duties  would  be  reduced  ; 


PROTEST   OF    SOUTH   CAROLINA.  97 

but  so  far  from  this,  the  manufactories  had  increased  ;  the  pros 
perity  of  one  had  induced  others  to  embark  in  the  business,  and 
there  had  been  constant  application  for  new  duties,  which  had 
been  granted.  South  Carolina  has  protested  against  these  du 
ties  ;  lie  did  not  know  that  the  Constitution  acknowledged  this 
principle ;  he  did  know  that  the  Constitution  had  not  lately 
been  looked  to.  Constitutional  arguments  had  been  used  which 
had  never  been  replied  to." 

Mr.  HAYNE,  the  other  Senator,  among  other  things  said : 
"  One  of  the  most  unhappy  circumstances  connected  with  the 
present  condition  of  the  Southern  States,  is  the  great,  he  might 
perhaps  say,  the  insuperable  difficulty  of  causing  their  senti 
ments  and  feelings  to  bo  made  known,  so  as  to  be  understood 
and  appreciated  by  their  fellow-citizens  in  other  quarters  of  the 
Union.  Viewing  the  United  States  as  one  country,  the  people 
of  the  South  might  almost  be  considered  as  strangers  in  the  land 
of  their  fathers.  The  fruits  of  their  industry  had.  from  the  pol 
icy  pursued  by  the  Federal  Government,  been  flowing  to  the 
North,  in  a  current  as  steady  and  as  undeviating  as  the  waters 
of  the  great  Gulf ;  and  as  the  sources  of  our  prosperity  were 
drying  up,  that  reciprocal  intercourse,  which  had  softened  as 
perities  and  bound  the  different  parts  of  the  Union  together  in 
the  bonds  of  sympathy  and  affection,  had  in  a  great  measure 
ceased. 

"  That  close  and  intimate  communion,  necessary  to  a  full 
knowledge  of  each  other,  no  longer  existed,  and  in  place  of  it 
there  was  springing  up,  (it  is  useless  to  disguise  the  truth,) 
among  the  people  in  opposite  quarters  of  the  Union,  a  spirit  of 
jealousy  and  distrust,  founded  on  the  settled  conviction,  on  the 
one  part,  that  they  are  the  victims  of  injustice,  and  on  the  other, 
that  our  complaints,  if  not  groundless,  may  be  safely  disregarded. 
The  people  of  the  South  are  well  aware  of  the  evils  growing  out 
of  this  unhappy  state  of  things,  and  of  none  arc  they  more  deeply 
sensible  than  that  (from  causes  to  which  I  shall  now  advert) 
the  eyes  of  our  brethren  have  been  closed  to  our  true  condition, 
and  their  hearts  shut  against  our  just  complaints.  Although 
South  Carolina,  in  common  with  several  of  her  sister  States, 
had,  on  former  occasions,  avowed  the  principles  contained  in 
the  protest,  yet  it  may  well  be  doubted  (if  we  can  judge  from 


08  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

what  we  see  and  hear  around  us)  whether  it  is  believed  north 
of  the  Potomac  that  she  really  entertains  them  :  for,  in  the  face 
of  the  solemn  declarations  of  her  people  and  their  representa 
tives,  denouncing  the  policy  pursued  by  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  as  involving  them  in  ruin,  we  find  the  public  ear  abused 
and  the  public  mind  deluded  by  exaggerated  statements  of  our 
uninterrupted  prosperity  and  happiness.  It  has  even  been  in 
sinuated  here,  at  the  very  seat  of  Government,  that  the  enlight 
ened  public  of  the  South  is  in  favor  of  this  policy,  and  that  the 
excitement  which  prevails  there  is  merely  '  artificial,'  if  it  has 
not  been  '  got  up  for  party  purposes.' ' 

North  Carolina  also  protested  against  the  law  ;  and  Alabama 
denied  the  power  of  Congress  to  lay  duties  for  protection. 


KEMAKKS. 

1.  Tariff  laws,  from  1789  until  181G,  had  been  enacted  for 
the  raising  revenue  for  the  support  of  the  Government,  and  pay 
ing  off  the  national  debts ;  while  the  protection,   afforded  by 
them  to  manufactures  had  been  purely  incidental. 

2.  In  1816,  mainly  from  patriotic  motives,  the  rates  of  tariff 
were  raised,  for  the  purpose  of  affording  protection  to  manufac 
turers,  who  could  not  maintain  a  competition  with  foreign  man 
ufacturers  at  peace  prices.     To  this  there  wras  no  sectional  oppo 
sition.     It  was  generally  felt  to  be  desirable  that  the  country 
ought  to  be  more  independent  of  foreign  nations  than  it  had 
been  during  the  war,  for  the  supply  of  manufactures. 

3.  In  1824  it  became   evident  that  politicians   and  manu 
facturers  had  united  their  efforts  to  promote  what  Mr.  CLAY 
called  the   "  American   system,"   by  which   the   former  class 
might  the  better  rise  to  political  power  in  the  country,  and  by 
which  the  latter  might  accumulate  large  fortunes  by  the  indirect 
bounty  paid  by  their  countrymen  in  the  shape  of  a  tariff  for 
protection.     Mr.  CLAY,  having  left  the  Democratic  party,  united 
his  political  fortunes  with  the  Northern   manufacturers.     The 
interests  of  the  Southern  States  lay  in  free  trade.    Party  politics 
and  the  hopes  of  politicians  likewise  became  connected  with  the 
doctrines  of  free  trade. 

4.  The  tariff  of  1828  was  not  a  "  judicious  tariff."     Like  the 


REMARKS.  99 

tariff  of  1824,  it  was  established  immediately  before  tlie  Presi 
dential  election,  which  it  was  designed  to  influence  and  control. 
The  address  of  the  Ilarrisburg  manufacturers'  Convention  was 
a  strange  medley  of  ideas,  and  yet  it  had  a  powerful  influence 
in  certain  quarters  upon  party  politics  of  the  time.  It  was  de 
signed,  probably,  among  other  things,  to  promote  the  election 
of  some  politician  to  the  Presidency  who  was  in  favor  of  a  high 
tariff,  and  who  would  satisfy  the  cravings  of  the  manufacturers 
for  large  gains. 

5.  The  Southern  States  naturally  became  very  hostile  to  the 
strangely  so-called  "  American  system,"  which  they  viewed  as 
adopted  to  enrich  Northern  manufacturers,  and  exalt  to  office 
its  patrons.  From  the  increasing  demands  of  manufacturers, 
they  came  to  regard  the  tariff  for  protection  as  a  "  daughter  of 
the  horse-leech  which  cries  '  Give,  give.' ' 

It  was  not  strange  that  the  Southern  States  should  have  the 
same  repugnance  to  Federal  legislation  in  1828,  which  imposed 
ruinous  burdens  upon  their  agricultural  industry,  which  the 
Northern  States  manifested  during  and  some  years  before  the 
war  of  1812,  towards  Federal  legislation,  which  imposed  severe 
restrictions  upon  their  commerce.  However  injudicious,  it  is 
not  strange  that  they  should  look  to  nullification  or  secession  as 
a  relief  from  what  they  deemed  unconstitutional  burdens,  just 
as  some  of  the  Northern  States  then  did. 

G.  Northern  manufacturers,  like  Northern  men  generally, 
were  not  acquainted  with  the  agricultural  interests  of  the  South ; 
just  as  Southern  planters  were  not  acquainted  with  Northern 
interests.  They  did  not  apprehend  the  real  operation  of  the 
tariff  upon  the  planting  States.  Politicians  and  manufacturers 
persuaded  themselves  that  they  understood  the  interests  of  the 
South  better  than  Southern  men  did.  They  seriously  attempted 
in  Congress,  in  editorials,  and  in  conversation,  to  show  that  it 
was  for  the  benefit  of  Southern  planters  that  they  should  pay 
high  duties  to  the  Government,  or  high  prices  to  Northern 
manufacturers.  They  wrote  or  talked  as  if  the  Northern  States 
were  justified  in  forcing  upon  the  South  a  high  tariff  for  its 
benefit. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


MARCH  4,  1829— MARCH  4,  1837. 

GENERAL  JACKSON  was  elected  President  by  178  electoral 
votes  against  83  votes  which  were  cast  for  Mr.  ADAMS.  Every 
State  south  of  the  Potomac  cast  its  electoral  vote  for  General 
JACKSON.  Every  electoral  vote  of  the  New  England  States, 
except  one  from  Maine,  was  cast  for  Mr.  ADAMS.  At  his  second 
election  he  received  210  votes  ;  Mr.  CLAY  received  49  votes. 

He  was  in  favor  of  a  strict  construction  of  the  Constitution, 
by  which  the  States  would  practically  retain  their  reserved 
rights.  He  was  opposed  to  that  broad  or  large  construction 
of  the  Constitution,  by  which  a  United  States  Bank  had  been 
chartered,  and  by  which  a  system  of  internal  improvements  had 
been  adopted  or  projected,  and  by  which  high  protective  tariffs 
had  been  established. 

In  his  inaugural  address,  he  has  the  following  paragraph  in 
reference  to  the  position  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  and 
other  States  in  respect  to  the  tariff  of  1828.  "  In  such  measures 
as  I  may  be  called  on  to  pursue,  in  regard  to  the  rights  of  the 
separate  States,  I  hope  to  be  animated  by  a  proper  respect  for 
those  sovereign  members  of  our  Union  ;  taking  care  not  to  con 
found  the  powers  they  have  reserved  to  themselves,  with  those 
they  have  granted  to  the  Confederacy."  In  his  first  annual 
message,  after  speaking  of  the  tariff  and  any  attempts  that  may 
be  made  to  connect  it  with  the  party  politics  of  the  day,  he 
adds  :  "  Legislation,  subjected  to  such  influences,  can  never  be 


SPEECHES    ON   NULLIFICATION.  101 

just,  and  cannot  long  retain  the  sanction  of  a  people  whose 
active  patriotism  is  not  bounded  by  sectional  limits,  nor  insen 
sible  to  that  spirit  of  concession  and  forbearance  which  gives 
life  to  our  political  compact,  and  still  sustains  it.  Discarding 
all  calculations  of  political  ascendency,  the  North,  the  South, 
the  East,  the  West,  should  unite  in  diminishing  any  burthen  of 
which  either  may  justly  complain."  "I  cannot,  therefore,  too 
strongly  warn  you  against  all  encroachments  upon  the  legiti 
mate  sphere  of  State  Sovereignty." 

SPEECHES    ON    NULLIFICATION. 

In  January/ 1830,  during  the  first  session  of  Congress  in 
General  JACKSON'S  Administration,  the  celebrated  dispute  upon 
Mr.  FOOT'S  Resolution  concerning  the  public  lands  took  place 
in  the  Senate.  In  this  debate,  Mr.  HAYNE  and  Mr.  WEBSTER 
made  their  sectional  speeches,  into  which  the  subject  of  Nulli 
fication  largely  entered.  Mr.  HAYNE  opened  the  debate  on  the 
subject  of  the  public  lands,  and  was  followed  by  Mr.  WEBSTER, 
in  a  speech  in  which  he  combated  opinions  on  the  subject  of 
the  Union,  held  by  some  of  Mr.  HAYNE'S  friends,  among  whom 
was  the  Yice-President,  (Mr.  CALHOUN,)  then  in  the  chair.  This 
unexpectedly  called  out  Mr.  HAYNE  to  defend  these  opinions, 
from  which  Mr.  WEBSTER  had  exonerated  him,  which  he  gen 
erously  did,  in  a  speech  of  great  ability  and  eloquence.  To  this 
Mr.  WEBSTER  replied,  in  a  speech  of  equal  or  greater  ability 
and  eloquence.  This  produced  a  rejoinder  by  Mr.  HAYNE, 
which  produced  a  surrejoinder  by  Mr.  WEBSTER. 

These  speeches  were  eminently  sectional,  and  have  had  an 
influence  to  increase  the  strength  of  sectional  feeling  in  the 
North  and  in  the  South.  Mr.  WEBSTER'S  eulogy  upon  Massa 
chusetts  and  upon  the  Union,  in  his  most  elaborate  speech  on 
the  occasion,  are  familiar  as  declamations  to  the  colleges  and 
schools  of  the  North.  In  the  speeches,  both  of  Mr.  HAYNE  and 
Mr.  WEBSTER,  there  were  fallacies  which  were  shown  up  by 
other  speakers  who  addressed  the  Senate  on  the  subject  of  Nul 
lification,  among  whom  were  Mr.  ROWAN,  Mr.  GRUNDY,  Mr. 
CLAYTON,  Mr.  WOODBURY,  and  Mr.  EDWARD  LIVINGSTON.  In  the 
course  of  his  speech,  Mr.  LIVINGSTON  spoke  as  follows : 


102  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

"  Ify  learned  and  honorable  friend,  the  Senator  near  me, 
from  South  Carolina,  (Mr.  HAYNE,)  comes,  in  the  eloquent  ar 
guments  he  has  made,  to  the  conclusion,  that  whenever,  in  the 
language  of  the  Virginia  resolutions,  (which  he  adopts,)  there  is, 
in  the  opinion  of  any  one  State,  "  a  palpable,  deliberate,  and 
dangerous  violation  of  the  Constitution  by  a  law  of  Congress," 
such  State  may,  without  ceasing  to  be  a  member  of  the  Union, 
declare  the  law  to  be  unconstitutional,  and  prevent  its  execu 
tion  within  the  State ;  that  this  is  a  constitutional  right,  and 
that  its  exercise  will  produce  a  constitutional  remedy,  by  oblig 
ing  Congress  either  to  repeal  the  law,  or  to  obtain  an  explicit 
grant  of  the  power  which  is  denied  by  the  State,  by  submitting 
an  amendment  to  the  several  States,  and  that,  by  the  decision 
of  the  requisite  number,  the  State,  as  well  as  the  Union,  would 
be  bound.  It  would  be  doing  injustice,  both  to  my  friend  and 
to  his  argument,  if  I  did  not  add,  that  this  resort  to  the  nullify 
ing  power,  as  it  has  been  termed,  ought  to  be  had  only  in  the 
last  resort,  when  the  grievance  was  intolerable,  and  all  other 
means  of  remonstrance  and  appeal  to  the  other  States  had  failed. 

"  In  this  opinion,  I  understand  the  honorable  and  learned 
Chairman  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  (Mr.  How  AN)  substan 
tially  to  agree,  particularly  in  the  constitutional  right  of  pre 
venting  the  execution  of  the  obnoxious  law. 

"  The  Senator  from  Tennessee,  (Mr.  GRUXDY,)  in  his  speech, 
which  was  listened  to  with  so  much  attention  and  pleasure, 
very  justly  denies  the  right  of  declaring  the  nullity  of  a  law, 
and  preventing  its  execution,  to  the  ordinary  Legislature,  but 
erroneously,  in  my  opinion,  gives  it  to  a  convention. 

"  My  friend  from  Xew  Hampshire,  (Mr.  WOODBUBT,)  of 
whose  luminous  argument  I  cannot  speak  too  highly,  and  to  the 
greatest  part  of  which  I  agree,  does  not  coincide  in  the  assertion 
•of  a  constitutional  right  of  preventing  the  execution  of  a  law 
believed  to  be  unconstitutional,  but  refers  opposition  to  the  un- 
alienable  right  of  resistance  to  oppression. 

"  All  these  Senators  consider  the  Constitution  as  a  compact 
octween  the  States  in  their  sovereign  capacity  ;  and  one  of 
them  (Mr.  ROWAN)  has  contended  that  sovereignty  cannot  be 
divided ;  from  which  it  may  be  inferred  that  no  part  of  the 
sovereign  power  has  been  transferred  to  the  General  Government. 


SPEECHES    ON   NULLIFICATION.  103 

"The  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  (Mr.  WEBSTER,)  in  his 
very  eloquent  and  justly  admired  address  on  this  subject,  con 
siders  the  Federal  Constitution  as  entirely  popular,  and  not 
created  by  compact,  and  from  this  position,  very  naturally 
shows  that  there  can  be  no  constitutional  right  of  actual  resist 
ance  to  a  law  of  that  Government,  but  that  intolerable  and 
illegal  acts  may  justify  it  on  first  principles. 

"  However  these  opinions  may  differ,  there  is  one  consol 
atory  reflection,  that  none  of  them  justify  a  violent  opposition 
given  to  an  unconstitutional  law,  until  an  extreme  case  of  suffer 
ing  has  occurred.  Still  less  do  any  of  them  suppose  the  actual 
existence  of  such  a  case. 

"  But  the  danger  of  establishing,  on  the  one  hand,  a  constitu 
tional  veto  in  each  of  the  States,  upon  any  act  of  the  whole,  to 
be  exercised  whenever,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Legislature  of  such 
State,  the  act  they  complain  of  is  contrary  to  the  Constitution  ; 
and  on  the  other,  the  dangers  which  result  to  the  State  Govern 
ments  by  considering  that  of  the  Union  as  entirely  popular,  and 
denying  the  existence  of  any  compact ;  seem,  both  of  them,  to 
be  so  great,  as  to  justify,  and  indeed  demand,  an  expression  of 
my  dissent  from  both. 

"  The  arguments  on  the  one  side,  to  show  that  the  Consti 
tution  is  the  result  of  a  compact  between  the  States,  cannot,  I 
think,  be  controverted ;  and  those  which  go  to  show  that  it  is 
founded  on  the  consent  of  the  people,  and,  in  one  sense,  a  pop 
ular  government,  are  equally  incontrovertible.  Both  of  these 
propositions,  seemingly  so  contradictory,  are  true,  and  both  of 
them  are  false — true,  as  it  respects  one  feature  in  the  Constitu 
tion  ;  erroneous,  if  applied  to  the  whole. 

"  By  a  popular  consolidated  Government,  I  understand  one 
that  is  founded  on  the  consent,  express  or  implied,  of  the  people 
of  the  whole  nation ;  and  which  operates  directly  upon  the 
people. 

"  By  a  Federative  Government,  as  contradistinguished  from 
the  former,  I  mean  one  composed  of  several  independent  States, 
bound  together  for  specific  purposes,  and  relying  for  the  efficacy 
of  its  operations  on  its  action  upon  the  different  States  in  their 
political  capacity,  not  individually  upon  their  citizens. 

"  The  old  Confederation  was  a  compact  between  the  States  ; 


104:  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

but  among  a  number  of  stipulations  strictly  federative,  it  con 
tained  others  which  gave  to  the  Congress  powers  which  trenched 
upon  the  State  sovereignties ;  to  declare  war  and  to  make  peace  ; 
to  enter  into  treaties  binding  on  the  whole  ;  to  establish  Courts 
of  Admiralty,  with  power  to  bind  the  citizens  of  the  States  in 
dividually  in  cases  coming  under  that  jurisdiction  ;  to  raise 
armies,  equip  fleets,  coin  money,  emit  bills  of  credit,  and  other 
similar  powers. 

"  In  the  Federal  Constitution,  this  combination  of  the  two 
characteristics  of  Government  is  more  apparent.  It  was  framed 
by  delegates  appointed  by  the  States ;  it  was  ratified  by  con 
ventions  of  the  people  of  each  State,  convened  according  to  the 
laws  of  the  respective  States.  It  guarantees  the  existence  of  the 
States,  which  are  necessary  to  its  own ;  the  States  are  repre 
sented  in  one  branch  by  Senators,  chosen  by  the  Legislatures ; 
and  in  the  other,  by  Representatives  taken  from  the  people,  but 
chosen  by  a  rule  which  may  be  made  and  varied  by  the  States, 
not  by  Congress — the  qualifications  of  electors  being  different  in 
different  States.  They  may  make  amendments  to  the  Constitu 
tion.  In  short,  the  Government  had  its  inception  with  them ; 
it  depends  on  their  political  existence  for  its  operation  ;  and  its 
duration  cannot  go  beyond  theirs.  The  States  existed  before 
the  Constitution ;  they  parted  only  with  such  powers  as  are 
specified  in  that  instrument ;  they  continue  still  to  exist,  with 
all  the  powers  they  have  not  ceded ;  and  the  present  Govern 
ment  would  never,  itself,  have  gone  into  operation,  had  not  the 
States,  in  their  political  capacity,  consented.  That  consent 
is  a  compact  of  each  one  with  the  whole ;  not,  as  has  been  ar 
gued,  (by  Mr.  WEBSTER,  in  order  to  throw  a  kind  of  ridicule  on 
this  convincing  part  of  the  argument  of  my  friend  from  South 
Carolina,)  with  the  Government  which  was  made  by  such  com 
pact.  It  is  difficult,  therefore,  it  would  appear,  with  all  these 
characters  of  a  federative  nature,  to  deny  to  the  present  Gov 
ernment  the  description  of  one  founded  on  compact,  to  which 
each  State  was  a  party ;  and  a  conclusive  proof,  if  any  more 
were  wanted,  would  be  in  the  fact,  that  the  States  adopted  the 
Constitution  at  different  times,  and  many  of  them  on  conditions 
which  were  afterwards  complied  with  by  amendments.  If  it 
were  strictly  a  popular  Government,  in  the  sense  that  is  con- 


SPEECHES    ON    NULLIFICATION.  105 

tended  for,  tlic  moment  a  majority  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States  had  consented,  it  would  have  bound  the  rest ;  and  yet, 
after  all  the  others,  except  one,  had  adopted  the  Constitution, 
the  smallest  still  held  out ;  and  if  Rhode  Island  had  not  con 
sented  to  enter  into  the  Confederacy,  she  would,  perhaps,  at  this 
time,  have  been  unconnected  with  us. 

"  But  with  all  these  proofs  (and  I  think  them  incontrover 
tible)  that  the  Government  could  not  have  been  brought  into 
being  without  a  compact,  yet  I  am  far  from  admitting  that, 
because  this  entered  so  largely  into  its  origin,  therefore  there 
are  no  characteristics  of  another  kind,  which  impress  on  it 
strongly  the  marks  of  a  more  intimate  union  and  amalgamation 
of  the  interests  of  the  citizens  of  the  different  States,  which 
gives  to  them  the  general  character  of  citizens  of  the  United 
nation.  *  *'  The  Government,  also,  for  the  most  part,  (except 
in  the  election  of  Senators,  Representatives,  and  President,  and 
some  others,)  acts  in  the  exercise  of  its  legitimate  powers  di 
rectly  upon  individuals,  and  not  through  the  medium  of  State 
authorities.  This  is  an  essential  character  of  a  popular  Govern 
ment. 

"  I  place  little  reliance  on  the  argument  which  has  been 
mostly  depended  on,  to  show  that  this  is  a  popular  Govern 
ment  :  I  mean  the  preamble,  which  begins  with  the  words, 
'  We,  the  people.'  It  proves  nothing  more  than  the  fact,  that 
the  people  of  the  several  States  had  been  consulted,  and  had 
given  their  consent  to  the  instrument.  To  give  these  words  any 
other  construction,  would  be  to  make  them  an  assertion  directly 
contrary  to  the  fact.  We  know,  and  it  never  has  been  imagined 
or  asserted,  that  the  people  of  the  United  States,  collectively,  as 
a  whole  people,  gave  their  assent,  or  were  consulted  in  that 
capacity  ;  the  people  of  each  State  were  consulted,  to  know 
whether  that  State  would  form  a  part  of  the  United  States, 
under  the  Articles  of  the  Constitution,  and  to  that  they  gave 
their  assent,  simply  as  citizens  of  that  State." 

The  discussion,  as  already  stated,  came  up  unexpectedly  to 
Mr.  UAYNE  and  Mr.  WEBSTER,  certainly  to  the  former,  on  a  sub 
ject,  namely  the  public  lands,  which  had  no  necessary  connec 
tion  with  the  subject  of  Nullification ;  probably  the  mind 
of  each  was  full  of  the  latter  subject ;  and  hence  the  facilit}r 


106  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

with  which  both  entered  on  the  discussion,  after  it  had  been 
distinctly  introduced!  by  Mr.  WEBSTER. 

President  JACKSON,  in  his  annual  message,  at  the  opening 
of  Congress,  1831,  recommended  the  abolition  of  duties  on  nu 
merous  articles  of  necessity  or  comfort  not  produced  at  home. 
On  the  9th  of  January,  1832,  Mr.  CLAY  submitted  a  Resolution 
in  relation  to  the  tariff,  and  in  a  speech  of  three  days'  duration 
he  supported  his  "  American  system,"  in  subordination  to 
which  he  proposed  to  make  any  reduction  of  duties  which 
should  be  necessary. 

In  opposition  to  Mr.  CLAY'S  resolution,  G-eneral  SAMUEL  SMITH 
of  Maryland  spoke  as  follows  : 

"  We  have  arrived  at  a  crisis.  Yes,  Mr.  President,  a  crisis 
more  appalling  than  a  day  of  battle.  I  adjure  the  Committee 
on  Manufactures  to  pause ;  to  reflect  on  the  dissatisfaction  of 
the  South.  South  Carolina  has  expressed  herself  strongly 
against  the  tariff  of  1828,  stronger  than  the  other  States  are 
willing  to  speak.  But,  sir,  the  whole  South  feel  deeply  the  op 
pression  of  this  tariff.  In  this  respect  there  is  no  difference  of 
opinion.  The  South,  the  whole  Southern  States,  all  consider  it 
as  oppressive.  They  have  not  yet  spoken ;  but  when  they  do 
speak,  it  will  be  in  a  voice  that  will  not  implore,  but  will  de 
mand  redress. 

"I  am,  Mr.  President,  one  of  the  few  survivors  of  those  who 
fought  in  the  War  of  the  Revolution.  We  then  thought  we 
fought  for  liberty,  for  equal  rights.  We  fought  against  taxa 
tion,  the  proceeds  of  which  were  for  the  benefit  of  others. 
Where  is  the  difference  if  the  people  are  to  be  taxed  by  the 
manufacturers  or  by  any  others  ?  I  say  manufacturers,  and 
why  do  I  say  so  ?  When  the  Senate  met,  there  was  a  strong 
disposition  with  all  parties  to  ameliorate  the  tariff  of  1828  ;  but 
now  I  see  a  change,  which  makes  me  almost  despair  of  any 
thing  effectual  being  accomplished.  Even  the  small  concessions 
made  by  the  Senator  from  Kentucky,  (Mr.  CLAY,)  have  been 
reprobated  by  the  lobby  members,  the  agents  of  the  manufac 
turers.  I  am  told  they  have  put  their  fiat  on  any  change  what 
ever,  and  hence,  as  a  consequence,  the  change  in  the  course  and 
language  of  gentlemen  that  precludes  all  hope.  Those  inter 
ested  may  hang  on  the  Committee  of  Manufactures  like  an 


THE   AMERICAN    SYSTEM.  107 

incubus.  I  say  to  that  Committee,  depend  upon  your  own 
good  judgment,  discard  sectional  interests,  and  study  only  the 
common  weal.  Act  with  these  views,  and  thus  retain  the  affec 
tions  of  the  South." 

Mr.  CLAY  was  deeply  and  anxiously  sensible  of  the  discon 
tent  in  the  Southern  States  in  respect  to  a  protective  tariff. 
lie  would,  if  possible,  avert  the  danger  to  the  Union  from  that 
quarter,  but  he  felt  that  there  was  a  greater  danger  from 
another  quarter  if  the  "  American  system"  should  be  given  up. 
In  his  speech  he  expresses  himself  in  the  following  terms  : 

"  And  now,  Mr.  President,  I  have  to  make  a  few  observa 
tions  on  a  delicate  subject,  which  I  approach  with  all  the  re 
spect  that  is  due  to  its  serious  and  grave  nature.  They  have  not,, 
indeed,  been  rendered  necessary  by  the  speech  of  the  gentleman, 
from  South  Carolina,  (Mr.  HAYNE,)  whose  forbearance  to  notice1 
the  topic  was  commendable,  as  his  argument  throughout  was 
characterized  by  an  ability  and  dignity  worthy  of  him  and  of 
the  Senate.  ~x~  *  But  it  is  impossible  to  conceal  from  our 
view  the  fact  that  there  is  a  great  excitement  in  South  Carolina, 
that  the  protective  system  is  openly  and  violently  denounced 
in  public  meetings,  and  that  the  Legislature  itself  has  declared 
its  purpose  of  resorting  to  counteracting  measures  ;  a  suspension 
of  which  has  only  been  submitted  to,  for  the  purpose  of  allow 
ing  Congress  to  retrace  its  steps  with,  respect  to  this  Union. 
Mr.  President,  the  truth  cannot  be  too  generally  proclaimed, 
nor  too  strongly  inculcated,  that  it  is  necessary  to  the  whole 
and  to  all  the  parts — necessary  to  those  parts  in  different  der 
grees,  but  vitally  necessary  to  each. 

"  The  clanger  to  our  Union  does  not  lie  on  the  side  of  per 
sistence  in  the  American  system,  but  on  that  of  its  abandon 
ment.  If,  as  I  have  supposed  and  believe,  the  inhabitants  of 
all  north  and  east  of  James  River,  and  all  west  of  the  moun 
tains,  including  Louisiana,  are  deeply  interested  in  the  preserva 
tion  of  that  system,  would  they  be  reconciled  to  its  overthrow  ? 
Can  it  be  expected  that  two-thirds  or  three-fourths  of  the  people* 
of  the  United  States  would  consent  to  the  destruction  of  a  policy 
believed  to  be  absolutely  necessary  to  their  prosperity  ?  "When, 
too,  the  sacrifice  is  made  at  the  instance  of  a  single  interest, 

which  they  verily  believe  will  not  be  promoted  by  it.  *  *  * 
8 


108  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

What  would  be  the  condition  of  this  Union,  if  Pennsylvania  and 
New  York,  those  mammoth  members  of  our  confederacy,  were 
firmly  persuaded  that  their  industry  was  paralyzed  and  their 
prosperity  blighted,  by  the  enforcement  of  the  British  Colonial 
system,  under  the  delusive  name  of  free  trade  ?  They  are  now 
tranquil,  and  happy,  and  contented,  conscious  of  their  welfare, 
and  feeling  a  salutary  and  rapid  circulation  of  the  products  of 
home  manufactures  and  home  industry  throughout  all  their 
great  arteries.  But  let  that  be  checked,  let  them  feel  that  a 
foreign  system  is  to  predominate,  and  the  sources  of  their  sub 
sistence  and  comfort  are  to  be  dried  up  ;  let  New  England  and 
the  Middle  States  all  feel  that  they  too  are  the  victims  of  a  mis 
taken  policy,  and  let  those  vast  portions  of  our  country  despair 
of  any  favorable  change,  and  then,  indeed,  might  we  tremble  for 
the  continuance  of  the  Union." 

Here  we  are  presented  with  the  picture  of  disunion  coming 
from  the  North,  if  the  protective  system  should  be  abandoned. 
Mr.  CLAY  thus  intimates  that  if  the  North  should  not  have  the 
advantages  of  protection  to  their  manufactures,  it  wrould  adopt 
a  course  to  destroy  the  Union. 

On  January  23,  1832,  Mr.  DRAYTON,  of  South  Carolina,  pre 
sented  a  memorial  of  the  members  of  the  Legislature  of  South 
Carolina,  opposed  to  nullification.  They  state  "  that  they  are 
exceedingly  aggrieved  by  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  im 
posing  high  duties  on  foreign  merchandise  for  the  protection  of 
manufactures  ;  "  "  that  the  policy,  the  justice,  and  the  constitu 
tionality  of  the  present  system  of  high  protective  duties  have 
been  strenuously  denied'."  "  The  objections  to  the  restrictive 
system  are  of  the  gravest  character,  and  the  sense  of  oppression 
and  injustice,  which  it  has  excited,  are  widely  diffused  and 
deeply  felt."  Thus  there  appears  to  have  been  no  difference  of 
opinion  in  South  Carolina,  in  respect  to  the  injurious  effects  of 
the  tariff  laws  then  in  force. 

While  this  bill  was  under  consideration,  Mr.  CHOATE,  of 
Massachusetts,  in  an  able  and  characteristic  speech,  said  :  "  Still 
the  difficulty  recurs.  There  is  a  great  sectional  excitement,  and 
that,  whether  groundless  or  not,  is,  per  se,  a  case  to  act  on.  It 
is  desirable  to  allay  the  excitement.  Yes,  certainly  ;  but  how  ? 
Sir,  my  humble  scheme  is  this :  I  think,  in  the  language  of 


THE   COMPROMISE   BILL.  109 

medical  men,  the  case  requires  topical  treatment,  local  applica 
tions.  Search  out  the  sectional  grievance,  if  you  can  find  it. 
Find  what  are  the  articles  exclusively  of  Southern  consumption, 
and  important  in  the  economy  of  the  South,  and  relieve  them 
of  all  protective  duty.  Strike  them  out  of  the  statute.  For  so 
much  let  there  be  no  tariff,  and  let  them  be  fabricated  in  Eng 
land,  that  the  American  Union  may  be  preserved  ;  and  let  all 
others  be  as  they  are  now  effectually  protected."  He  evidently 
was  for  concession  and  conciliation. 

The  bill  was  passed  in  the  House,  June  27,  1832,  and  in  the 
Senate,  July  9,  1832,  and  was  entirely  unsatisfactory  to  the 
Southern  States. 

In  the  next  annual  message,  President  JACKSON,  and  in  his 
report,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  recommended  a  change  in 
the  tariff  laws. 

The  ORDINANCE  of  the  Convention  of  South  Carolina  was 
issued  November  24,  1832,  declaring  the  revenue  laws  of  the 
United  States  null  and  void,  and  enjoining  the  Legislature  to 
carry  the  decree  into  effect.  The  Legislature  met  and  passed 
the  necessary  laws.  The  State  authorities  were  now  placed  in 
opposition  to  the  Federal  laws.  The  militia  of  the  State  were 
organized  and  armed,  to  be  ready  for  action.  General  SCOTT 
was  sent  to  Charleston  with  Federal  troops  and  two  vessels  of 
war,  to  be  prepared  to  enforce  the  laws  of  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  for  the  collection  of  the  revenue.  The  proclamation  of 
General  JACKSON,  in  view  of  that  ordinance,  was  issued  Decem 
ber  11,  1832.  His  message  was  sent  into  the  Senate  and  the 
House  of  Representatives,  in  which  he  asked  for  authority  and 
means  to  enforce  the  collection  of  revenue  in  South  Carolina. 
A  bill  for  that  purpose  was  introduced  into  the  Senate  from  the 
Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  January  28,  1833. 

But  before  that  bill  was  passed,  Mr,  CLAY  introduced  his 
compromise  bill,  February  12, 1833,  This  bill  was  passed  in 
the  House,  February  22,  1833,  and  in  the  Senate,  March  1, 
1833.  The  revenue  collection  bill  was  passed  in  Senate,  Feb 
ruary  18,  1833,  and  in  the  House,  February  28,  1833.  The 
compromise  bill  satisfied  South  Carolina  so  far,  that  Governor 
HAMILTON  called  the  Convention  together,  and  communicated 
to  it  the  modification  of  the  tariff.  The  Convention  then  passed 


110  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

an  ordinance  repealing  the  nullification  law.    Thus  the  sectional 
difficulty  was  settled  for  the  time. 


REMARKS. 

1.  The  tariff  laws  of  1824,  1828,  1833,  were  carried  against 
the  opinions  and  interests  of  the  Southern  States,  by  the  com 
bined  influence  of  manufacturers  and  politicians.     In  1824,  a 
portion  of  the  Eastern  members  were  opposed  to  the  tariff  act, 
from  a  regard  to  the  commercial  interests  of  the  States  or  dis 
tricts  which  they  represented.    With  some  exceptions,  the  tariff 
laws  of  1828  and  1832  were  Northern  measures,  for  the  benefit 
of  the  North.     "With,  some  few  exceptions,  these  laws  were  vig 
orously  opposed  by  the  South,  because  they  would  operate  in 
juriously  upon  Southern  interests.     Louisiana,  from  a  regard 
to  her  sugar  crop,  which  was  protected  by  the  tariff  laws,  went 
in  favor  of  those  laws.    The  greed  of  gain  and  the  greed  of  office 
conspired  to  pass  those  laws  for  the  evident  benefit  of  the  North, 
for  the  doubtful  benefit  of  the  whole  country,  and  to  the  mani 
fest  injury  of  the  South,  which  had  no  manufactures  to  be  ben 
efited. 

2.  The  Southern  States  felt  that  they  were  oppressed  by 
these   burdensome   tariffs.      According   to   the   intimation   of 
GEORGE  MASON  in,  the  Constitutional  Convention,  they  found 
themselves  "  bound  hand  and  foot"  in  the  power  of  the  Eastern 
States.     And  if  these  did  not  exclaim,  "  The  Lord  hath  deliv 
ered  them  in  our  hands,"  still  they  talked  about  the  "  general 
welfare  "  as  they  understood  it,  and  not  about  the  rights  of  the 
States,  or  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  which  secured  those 
rights.      As    "  a   gift   destroyeth   the   heart,"    so    u  oppression 
maketh  a  wise  man  mad."     As  the  profits  derived  from  pro 
tected  manufactures  produced  narrow  and  sectional  feelings  at 
the  North,  so  the  burdens  imposed  by  extravagant  tariff  laws 
led  the  State  of  South  Carolina  to  the  madness  or  folly  of  nulli 
fying  those  laws,  on  the  ground  that  they  were  oppressive  and 
unconstitutional. 

To  relieve  herself  from  the  operation  of  these  tariff  laws, 
South  Carolina  passed  the  ordinance  of  nullification,  which, 
whatever  may  be  true  in  the  theory  of  the  relationship  of  the 


REMARKS.  Ill 

States,  involves  the  practical  absurdity  that  a  State  may,  at  one 
and  the  same  time,  be  in  the  Union  for  the  enjoyment  of  its 
benefits,  and  out  of  the  Union  in  bearing  its  burdens.  South 
Carolina,  in  the  ordinance,  declares  that  in  case  of  the  applica 
tion  of  physical  force,  on  the  part  of  the  General  Government, 
to  execute  the  tariff  laws,  she  will  secede  and  set  up  a  separate 
Government.  To  meet  this  threat,  Senator  CLAYTON  declared 
and  proved  that  State  secession  is  a  less  evil  than  State  nulli 
fication. 

The  country  was  in  a  very  unhappy  condition.  South  Caro 
lina  had  passed  the  ordinance  of  nullification,  and  was  threat 
ening  secession.  The  Southern  States  sympathized  with  her. 
Virginia  had  passed  a  resolve  that  she  expected  both  the  Gen 
eral  Government  and  South  Carolina  to  keep  the  peace. 

3.  General  JACKSON  was  the  man  for  the  occasion  ;  and  yet 
his  action  in  the  premises  and  his  motives  have  been  misunder 
stood. 

a.  He  was  opposed  to  high  tariffs,  and  thus  agreed  with 
Southern  men  in  regard  to  the  cause  of  the  difficulty. 

~b.  He  earnestly  advised  the  repeal,  or  rather  a  modification 
of  the  tariff  laws,  which  had  created  the  difficulty.  This  he  did 
repeatedly  in  his  messages  to  Congress,  and  just  before  the  or 
dinance  was  passed. 

c.  He  claimed  to  be  a  native  of  South  Carolina,  and  could, 
therefore,  address  the  inhabitants  of  that  State  in  a  manner  that 
would  inspire  confidence,  in  his  endeavors  to  win  them  back 
into  the  Union.     While  he  thus  claims  kindred  with  them,  they 
would  feel  inclined  to  allow  his  claims,  and  yield  to  his  per 
suasion. 

Listen  to  his  language  of  kindness  which  he  addresses  to 
them  in  his  proclamation  :  "  Fellow-citizens  of  my  native  State ! 
Let  me  not  only  admonish  you,  as  the  first  magistrate  of  our 
common  country,  not  to  incur  the  penalty  of  its  laws,  but  use 
the  influence  that  a  father  would  have  over  his  children,  whom 
he  saw  rushing  to  ruin.  In  that  paternal  language,  with  that 
paternal  feeling,  let  me  tell  you,  my  countrymen,  that  you  are 
deluded  by  the  men  who  are  either  deceived  themselves,  or 
wish  to  deceive  you." 

d.  He  asked  authority  from  Congress  to  use  force,  if  it  should 


112  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

be  necessary,  in  the  collection  of  duties  in  South  Carolina. 
Congress  gave  him  this  authority,  but  it  also  passed  the  com 
promise  bill,  which  would  render  the  application  of  force  un 
necessary.  He  was  resolute  to  execute  the  laws,  even  upon  his 
native  State,  but  he  preferred  a  peaceful  settlement  of  the  diffi 
culties,  such  as  was  accomplished  by  his  own  wisdom,  and  that 
of  the  very  able  men  in  the  Cabinet,  and  in  the  Senate  and 
House  of  Representatives. 

4.  Mr.  CLAY  must  have  been  greatly  disappointed  in  the 
result  of  the  election  of  1832  ;  General  JACKSON  receiving  219 
votes,  and  he  only  49.  Besides  losing  his  election,  which  his 
friends  hoped  to  carry  by  means  of  his  "  American  system,"  he 
saw  that  the  system  itself  was  in  danger.  That  system  was 
made  by  his  party  one  of  the  important  issues  in  that  election, 
and  the  decision  of  the  Presidential  electors  seemed  to  be 
against  that  system  as  well  as  against  himself.  General  JACK 
SON,  too,  in  his  recent  message,  had  recommended  an  alteration 
of  the  tariff  laws,  a  recommendation  that  would  be  very  apt  to 
take  effect. 

Moreover,  Mr.  CLAY,  noble-spirited  as  he  was,  must  have 
had  some  "  compunctious  visitings  of  nature,"  in  view  of  the 
sectional  difficulties  which  had  been  brought  about  by  the  in 
troduction  of  his  favorite  system  into  the  legislation  of  the  coun 
try.  He  had  left  the  Democratic  party,  of  which  he  was  an 
ornament,  to  form  a  party  of  his  own,  which  had  been  success 
ful  in  carrying  his  favorite  measure,  but  which  had  not  been 
successful  in  the  late  Presidential  campaign.  Self-reliant  as  he 
was,  he  could  hardly  fail  to  have  some  misgivings  as  to  the 
wisdom  of  his  course,  which  had  helped  to  bring  the  country 
into  its  present  perilous  condition.  He  was,  without  doubt, 
anxious  to  settle  the  sectional  difficulties  in  a  way  honorable  to 
both  sections. 

When  Mr.  CLAY  introduced  his  compromise  bill  for  the  set 
tlement  of  these  difficulties,  he  accompanied  it  with  the  declara 
tion  "  that,  whether  rightfully  or  wrongfully,  the  tariff  stands 
in  imminent  danger.  If  it  should  even  be  preserved  during  this 
session,  it  must  fall  at  the  next  session." 

In  the  course  of  his  speech,  he  said  :  "  I  wish  to  see  the 
tariff  separated  from  the  politics  of  the  country,  that  business 


EEMARKS.  113 

men  may  go  to  work  in  security,  with  some  prospect  of  stability 
in  our  laws,  and  without  every  thing  being  staked  011  the  issue 
of  our  elections,  as  it  were  on  the  hazards  of  the  die." 

In  reference  to  the  state  of  sectional  feeling  for  and  against 
the  tariff,  he  said :  "  I  am  anxious  to  find  ont  some  principle 
of  mutual  accommodation,  to  satisfy,  as  far  as  practicable,  both 
parties ;  to  increase  the  stability  of  our  legislation ;  and,  at 
some  distant  day,  not  too  distant  when  we  take  into  view  the 
magnitude  of  the  interests  which  are  involved,  to  bring  down 
the  rate  of  duties  to  that  revenue  standard  for  which  our  oppo 
nents  have  so  long  contended." 

Mr.  FOKSYTII,  of  Georgia,  in  his  reply  to  Mr.  CLAY,  re 
marked  :  "  The  avowed  object  of  the  bill  would  meet  with  uni 
versal  approbation.  It  was  a  project  to  harmonize  the  people, 
and  it  could  come  from  no  better  source  than  from  the  gentle 
man  from  Kentucky  ;  for  to  no  one  else  were  we  more  indebted 
than  to  him,  for  the  discord  and  the  discontent  which  agitate 
us."  "  The  Senator  from  Kentucky  says  the  tariff  is  in  danger  ; 
aye,  sir,  it  is  at  its  last  gasp.  It  has  received  the  irremediable 
wound  ;  no  hellebore  can  cure  it." 

Mr.  JOHN  DAVIS,  of  Massachusetts,  in  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives,  said,  in  reference  to  this  bill :  "  But  I  do  object  to  a 
compromise  which  destines  the  East  to  the  altar.  No  victim, 
in  my  judgment,  is  required — none  is  necessary  ;  and  yet  you 
propose  to  bind  us  hand  and  foot,  to  pour  out  our  blood  on  the 
altar,  and  sacrifice  us  as  a  burnt-offering  to  appease  the  unnatu 
ral  and  unfounded  discontent  of  the  South — a  discontent,  I  fear, 
having  deeper  root  than  the  tariff,  and  will  continue  when  that 
is  forgotten." 

5.  Mr.  CALHOCN,  like  Mr.  CLAY,  was  worthy  of  the  highest 
office  in  the  gift  of  the  nation,  and,  like  him,  he  aspired  after  it. 
lie  was  a  leading  member  of  the  Democratic  party,  and  had 
acted  with  Mr.  CLAY  in  promoting  the  war  of  1812.  To  the 
"  American  system,"  which  Mr.  CLAY  had  labored  during  three 
Presidential  campaigns  to  establish,  he  was  strongly  opposed. 
He  was  an  advocate  of  free  trade,  except  for  the  purposes  of  a 
revenue,  and  was  in  favor  of  only  incidental  protection  to  man 
ufactures.  He  enjoyed  the  confidence  of  the  Democratic  party, 
and,  indeed,  of  the  whole  country,  as  an  able  statesman  and  an 


114  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

honest  man.  It  was  predicted  of  him  at  an  early  period,  that 
if  he  would  bide  his  time,  he  would  certainly  be  President  of 
the  United  States. 

But  now  in  1833,  both  he  and  Mr.  CLAY  seemed  to  be  as  far 
off  as  ever  from  the  position  they  both  coveted.  They  need 
not,  therefore,  now  be  jealous  of  each  other.  They  were  both 
patriots ;  they  both  hated  General  JACKSON  ;  they  were  both 
willing  to  unite  and  save  the  country,  and  to  thwart  any  mili 
tary  schemes  for  the  subjugation  of  South  Carolina.  On  the 
introduction  of  the  compromise  bill,  Mr.  CALHOUN  said :  "  He 
who  loved  the  Union  must  desire  to  see  this  great  agitating 
question  brought  to  a  termination.  Until  it  should  be  termi 
nated,  we  could  not  expect  the  restoration  of  peace  and  har 
mony,  or  a  sound  condition  of  things  throughout  the  country. 
He  believed  that  to  the  unhappy  divisions  which  had  kept  the 
Northern  and  Southern  States  apart  from  each  other,  the  present 
entirely  degraded  condition  of  the  country  wras  solely  attrib 
utable." 

To  Mr.  CLAY,  and  Mr.  CALHOUN,  and  General  JACKSON,  it  was 
principally  owing  that  these  sectional  difficulties  connected  with 
the  tariff  were  settled,  and  the  land  had  rest  for  a  time  and  a 
season. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  and 
Rhode  Island,  States  that  had  great  difficulties  with  the  General 
Government,  during  the  Administration  of  Mr.  JEFFERSON  and 
Mr.  MADISON,  on  account  of  their  commercial  interests,  as  set 
forth  in  the  doings  of  the  Hartford  Convention,  did  not  give  a 
single  vote  for  the  settlement  of  the  sectional  difficulties,  by  the 
passage  of  the  compromise  bill  proposed  by  Mr.  CLAY. 


CHAPTER  X. 

MR.  VAN  EUEEN'S  ADMINISTEATION. 

MARCH  4,  1837— MARCH  4,  1841. 

ME.  VAN  BUEEN  being  regarded  as  a  Northern  man  with 
Southern  principles,  was  not  elected  upon  sectional  issues ; 
though  both  before  and  after  his  election  such  issues  were 
pressed  upon  the  attention  of  the  people,  both  North  and 
South. 

In  the  latter  part  of  General  JACKSON'S  Administration,  and 
while  the  politicians  were  looking  out  upon  the  country  for 
available  Presidential  candidates,  the  subject  of  slavery  was 
forced  upon  the  attention  of  Congress,  in  the  shape  of  petitions 
for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 

One  of  these,  signed  by  800  ladies  from  the  State  of  New 
York,  was  presented  in  the  House  of  Representatives  in  Febru 
ary,  1835.  And  another  in  the  same  month  was  presented 
from  Massachusetts,  signed  by  1,240  male  citizens,  and  by 
2,643  ladies.  Petitions  like  these  from  different  portions  of  the 
Northern  States  were  pressed  on  the  attention  of  both  Houses 
of  Congress  for  the  space  of  four  years,  or  until  the  session  of 
Congress  immediately  before  the  next  Presidential  campaign. 
One  of  the  last  was  presented  by  Mr.  CLAY,  Feb.  13,  1840,  as 
he  said  "  in  deference  to  the  right  of  petition,  which  he  admit 
ted  in  its  full  force.  He  thought  the  crisis  of  this  unfortunate 
agitation  was  passed  ;  it  was  certainly  passed  when  Congress 
convened  in  December  last.  "Whether  the  political  uses  which 
have  since  been  made  of  it  may  not  revive  it,  and  revive  it 


116  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

in  a  more  imposing  form,  he  was  not  prepared  to  say."  The 
abolition  of  slavery  was  provided  for  in  this  petition. 

The  ground  taken  in  the  petitions  generally,  was,  that  slavery 
is  wrong  or  improper,  and  that  as  by  Article  1'st,  section  8th, 
Congress  has  power  "  to  exercise  exclusive  legislation  in  all 
cases  whatsoever  over  the  District  of  Columbia,"  it  is  bound  to 
abolish  slavery  in  the  District.  It  was  in  Congress  declared  to 
be  "  the  Great  National  Question." 

The  grounds  of  opposition  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the 
District  of  Columbia  are  the  following :  "  The  District  was 
ceded,  not  to  the  United  States,  but  to  Congress,  which  can 
claim  no  rights  of  sovereignty,  whatever  the  United  States  may : 
it  was  ceded  by  the  ordinary  Legislatures  of  Maryland  and  Vir 
ginia,  which  never  pretended  to  sovereignty.  We  know  that  the 
sovereignty  of  each  State  resides  in  the  people.  The  principle 
agreed  on  both  hands,  from  which  we  are  arguing,  is,  that  Con 
gress,  in  exclusive  legislation  over  the  territory,  property,  and 
people  of  this  District,  are  competent  to  do  in  respect  to  terri 
tory,  property,  and  people  of  this  District,  whatever  the  Legis 
latures  of  Maryland  and  Virginia  are  competent  to  do  in  respect 
to  the  territory,  property,  and  people  of  those  States  respec 
tively  ;  and  (I  add  and  insist)  no  more.  Therefore,  in  order  to 
show  that  Congress  has  Constitutional  power  to  abolish  the 
rights  of  slave  property  in  this  District,  it  must  first  be  shown 
that  the  Legislatures  of  those  two  States  have,  and  had,  at  the 
time  of  their  cession,  Constitutional  power  to  abolish  the  rights 
of  slave  property  within  their  limits. 

"  I  can  venture  to  say  that  the  great  "body  of  the  jurists  of 
Virginia,  as  well  as  of  the  people,  have  always  denied,  and  do 
yet  deny,  the  Constitutional  power  of  the  ordinary  Legislature 
to  abolish  the  rights  of  slave  property,  without  the  consent  of 
the  individual  owners.  I  do  not  know  what  opinion  has  been 
entertained  in  Maryland.  I  only  know  that  the  same  reasoning 
is  equally  applicable  to  the  legal  institutions  of  both  States. 

"  I  presume  it  can  hardly  be  imagined  that  Congress  can 
have  derived  from  the  acts  of  cession  of  Maryland  and  Virginia, 
that  is,  by  virtue  of  those  acts  alone,  any  other  or  greater  powers 
of  legislation  over  the  District,  than  those  Legislatures  themselves 
had  at  the  time  of  the  cession  ;  in  other  words,  that  the  grantee 


lit 

lias  acquired  by  the  grant  more  power  than  the  grantor  had  to 
cede." 

"  If  the  provision  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
giving  power  to  Congress  '  to  exercise  exclusive  legislation,  in 
all  cases  whatsoever,  over  such  District  as  may,  by  the  cession 
of  particular  States,  and  acceptance  of  Congress,  become  the 
seat  of  Government  of  the  United  States,'  is  to  be  taken  as  the 
only  source  and  the  only  measure  of  the  power  of  Congress  ;  if 
this  provision  is  to  be  construed  as  conferring  on  Congress  ab 
solute,  sovereign,  despotic  authority  over  the  people  of  the 
District,  and  their  private  rights  of  property,  unlimited  by  the 
just  measure  of  authority  that  belonged  to  the  State  Legisla 
tures  by  which  the  territory  was  ceded,  unlimited  by  any  con 
sideration  of  the  nature,  purposes,  and  exigencies  of  the  trust  for 
which  the  power  of  exclusive  legislation  was  given,  then  it  will 
follow  that  Congress  may,  in  its  wisdom,  or  in  its  folly,  abolish 
property  in  lands  as  well  as  in  slaves ;  may  enact  an  agrarian 
law  ;  nay,  more,  may  abolish  the  principle  of  property  entirely, 
and  establish  a  community  of  goods.  Kow,  certainly,  I  do  not 
apprehend  any  such  absurd  and  mischievous  legislation ;  but  it 
is  fair,  it  is  even  necessary,  to  pursue  this  claim  of  power  to  its 
consequences  in  order  to  test  its  justice.  The  truth  is,  sir,  that 
a  grant  of  power  of  *  exclusive  legislation  in  all  cases  whatso 
ever,'  over  a  territory  and  the  people  in  it,  does  not,  in  the  just 
sense  of  that  language,  as  used  by  American  law-givers,  import 
a  grant  of  absolute,  despotic,  sovereign  authority,  or  of  any  au 
thority  at  all  to  assume,  abolish,  or  impair  private  rights  of 
property.  It  imports  a  grant  of  the  power  of  ordinary  legisla 
tion.  The  proper  as  well  as  ordinary  business  of  legislation  is 
to  regulate  and  secure  the  rights  of  property,  never  to  annihilate 
them." — Speech  of  Mr.  Leigh  in  the  Senate,  Jan.  19,  1836. 


PINCKNEY'S  RESOLUTIONS.  —  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

25,  1836. 


1.  Resolved,  That  Congress  possesses  no  Constitutional  au 
thority  to  interfere,  in  any  way,  with  the  institution  of  slavery 
in  any  of  the  States  of  this  Confederacy  ;  passed  ly  a  vote  of 


118  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

182  to  9 ;   of  which  6  were  from  New  England,  and  3  from 
Pennsylvania. 

2.  Resolved,  That  Congress  ought  not  to  interfere  in  any 
way  with  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia  ;  passed  by  a  vote 
of  132  yeas,  and  45  nays.     All  the  votes  given  by  Massachu 
setts,   Vermont,  and  Rhode  Island,  in  the  negative. 

And  whereas  it  is  extremely  important  and  desirable  that 
the  agitation  of  this  subject  should  be  finally  arrested,  for  the 
purpose  of  restoring  tranquillity  to  the  public  mind,  your  com 
mittee  respectfully  recommend  the  adoption  of  the  following 
resolution,  viz. : 

3.  Resolved,  That  all  petitions,  memorials,  resolutions,  and 
papers,  relating  in  any  way,  or  to  any  extent  whatever,  to  the 
subject  of  slavery  or  the  abolition  of  slavery,  shall,  without  be 
ing  either  printed  or  referred,  be  laid  upon  the  table,  and  that 
no  farther  action  whatever  shall  be  had  thereon. 

This  was  passed  by  a  vote  of  117  to  68.  All  the  votes  given 
by  Massachusetts,  Vermont,  and  Rhode  Island  were. in  the  neg 
ative. 

VERMONT   ANTI-SLAVERY    RESOLUTIONS. SENATE. 

Mr.  SWIFT,  of  Vermont,  presented,  Dec.  19, 1837,  a  memorial 
and  resolutions  from  the  Legislature  of  Vermont  in  relation  to 
"  Texas  and  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia." 

Mr.  KING,  of  Alabama,  said  "  he  considered  it  an  infamous 
libel  and  insult  upon  the  South,  let  it  come  from  what  quarter 
it  would  ;  it  was  a  false  statement  in  relation  to  the  people  of 
the  South,  when  it  charged  them  with  disregard  for  the  laws, 
and  he  expressed  his  surprise  that  gentlemen  should  present 
papers  which  they  could  not  but  feel  were  untrue."  The  me 
morial  was  withdrawn  for  future  presentation. 

It  was  again  presented  January  16.  Mr.  SWIFT  said  "he 
would  offer  no  other  apology  than  the  duty  he  owed  to  the 
State.  The  Resolutions  spoke  for  themselves  ;  nor  did  Vermont 
require  him  to  vindicate  them  on  this  floor.  He  expressed  his 
regret,  however,  that  they  should  have  been  so  harshly  assailed 
as  they  had  been.  Not  only  the  sentiments  contained  in  them, 
but  the  motives  of  those  who  adopted  them,  had  been  subjects 
of  unjust  censure  and  reproach." 


SECESSION    OF    SOUTHERN   MEMBERS.  119 

Mr.  PRESTON,  of  South  Carolina,  "  presumed  the  document 
would  not  nave  been  presented  unless  under  authority  of  com 
mand  in  obedience  to  higher  power,  where  the  servant  could 
exercise  no  discretion.  Coming  from  a  sovereign  State,  we 
were,  he  presumed,  bound  to  treat  it  with  respect  and  defer 
ence.  Here  was  a  report  wantonly  presented,  characterized  by 
language  which,  if  used  by  an  individual  or  senator  of  this  body, 
would  be  rejected  with  disdain.  In  it  the  South  is  charged 
with  immorality  and  irreligion  ;  and  when  with  becoming  dignity 
we  repel  the  charge,  we  are  '  uncourteous  '  and  i  offensive  '  in 
our  language ;  while  we  are  stigmatized  as  debauched,  sen 
sual,  immoral,  sinful,  God-offending  creatures;  and  when  we 
speak  of  fanatics  and  incendiaries,  we  are  rebuked  and  chidden. 
Was  this  fair  ?  "Was  this  proper  ?  " 

HOUSE. DECEMBER    20,    1837. 

The  most  angry  and  portentous  debate  which  had  yet  taken 
place  in  Congress  occurred  at  this  time  in  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives.  It  was  brought  on  by  Mr.  WILLIAM  SLADE,  of  Ver 
mont,  who,  besides  presenting  petitions  of  the  usual  abolition 
character,  and  moving  to  refer  them  to  a  committee,  moved  their 
reference  to  a  select  committee,  with  instructions  to  report  a  bill 
in  conformity  to  their  prayer.  This  motion,  inflammatory  and 
irritating  in  itself,  and  without  practical  legislative  object,  as 
the  great  majority  of  the  House  was  known  to  be  opposed  to  it, 
was  rendered  still  more  exasperating  by  the  manner  of  support 
ing  it.  The  mover  entered  into  a  general  disquisition  on  the 
subject  of  slavery,  all  denunciatory,  and  was  proceeding  to 
speak  upon  it  in  the  State  of  Yirginia,  and  other  States,  in  the 
same  spirit,  when  Mr.  LEGAEE,  of  South  Carolina,  interposed, 
and — 

"  Hoped  the  gentleman  from  Yermont  would  allow  him  to 
make  a  few  remarks  before  he  proceeded  further.  He  sincerely 
hoped  that  gentleman  would  consider  well  what  he  was  about 
before  he  ventured  on  such  ground,  and  that  he  would  take 
time  to  consider  what  might  be  its  probable  consequences.  lie 
solemnly  entreated  him  to  reflect  on  the  possible  results  of  such 
a  course,  which  involved  the  interests  of  a  nation  and  a  conti- 


120  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

nent.  He  would  warn  him,  not  in  the  language  of  defiance, 
which  all  brave  and  wise  men  despised,  but  he  would  warn  him 
in  the  language  of  a  solemn  sense  of  duty,  that  if  there  was  *  a 
spirit  aroused  in  the  North  in  relation  to  this  subject,'  that 
spirit  would  encounter  another  spirit  in  the  South  full  as  stub 
born.  He  would  tell  them  that,  when  this  question  wTas  forced 
upon  the  people  of  the  South,  they  would  be  ready  to  take  up 
the  gauntlet.  He  concluded  by  urging  on  the  gentleman  from 
Vermont  to  ponder  well  on  his  course  before  he  ventured  to 
proceed." 

Mr.  SLADE  continued  his  remarks,  when  Mr.  DAWSON,  of 
Georgia,  asked  him  for  the  floor,  that  he  might  move  an  ad 
journment — evidently  to  carry  off  the  storm  which  he  saw 
rising.  Mr.  SLADE  refused  to  yield  it ;  so  the  motion  to  adjourn 
could  not  be  made.  Mr.  SLADE  continued,  and  was  proceeding 
to  answer  his  own  inquiry,  put  to  himself — what  was  slavery  f 
when  Mr.  DAWSON  again  asked  for  the  floor,  to  make  his  motion 
of  adjournment.  Mr.  SLADE  refused  it :  a  visible  commotion  be 
gan  to  pervade  the  House — members  rising,  clustering  together, 
and  talking  with  animation  ;  Mr.  SLADE  continued,  and  was  about 
reading  a  judicial  opinion  in  one  of  the  Southern  States  which 
defined  a  slave  to  be  a  chattel,  when  Mr.  WISE  called  him  to 
order  for  speaking  beside  the  question — the  question  being  upon 
the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  Mr. 
SLADE'S  remarks  going  to  its  legal  character,  as  property  in  a 
State. 

The  Speaker,  Mr.  JOHN  WHITE,  of  Kentucky,  sustained  the 
call,  saying  it  was  not  in  order  to  discuss  the  subject  of  slavery 
in  any  of  the  States.  Mr.  SLADE  denied  that  he  was  doing  so, 
and  said  he  was  merely  quoting  a  Southern  judicial  decision  as 
he  might  quote  a  legal  opinion  delivered  in  Great  Britain.  Mr. 
ROBERTSON,  of  Virginia,  moved  that  the  House  adjourn.  The 
Speaker  pronounced  the  motion  (and  correctly)  out  of  order,  as 
the  member  from  Vermont  was  in  possession  of  the  floor  and 
addressing  the  House.  He  would,  however,  suggest  to  the 
member  from  Vermont,  who  could  not  but  observe  the  state  of 
the  House,  to  confine  himself  strictly  to  the  subject  of  his  mo 
tion.  Mr.  SLADE  went  on  at  great  length,  when  Mr.  PETRIKIN, 
of  Pennsylvania,  called  him  to  order;  but  the  Chair  did  not 


SECESSION    OF   SOUTHERN   MEMBERS.  121 

sustain  the  call.  Mr.  SLADE  went  on,  quoting  from  the  Decla 
ration  of  Independence,  and  the  Constitutions  of  the  several 
States,  and  had  got  to  that  of  Virginia,  when  Mr.  WISE  called 
him  to  order  for  reading  papers  without  the  leave  of  the  House. 
The  Speaker  decided  that  no  paper  objected  to  could  be  read 
without  the  leave  of  the  House.  Mr.  WISE  then  said  : 

"  That  the  gentleman  had  wantonly  discussed  the  abstract 
question  of  slavery,  going  back  to  the  very  first  day  of  the  crea 
tion,  instead  of  slavery  as  it  existed  in  the  District,  and  the 
powers  and  duties  of  Congress  in  relation  to  it.  He  was  now 
examining  the  State  Constitutions  to  show  that  as  it  existed  in 
the  States  it  was  against  them,  and  against  the  laws  of  God  and 
man.  This  was  out  of  order." 

Mr.  SLADE  explained,  and  argued  in  vindication  of  his  course, 
and  was  about  to  read  a  memorial  of  Dr.  FRANKLIN,  and  an 
opinion  of  Mr.  MADISON  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  when  the 
reading  was  objected  to  by  Mr.  GRIFFIN,  of  South  Carolina ; 
and  the  Speaker  decided  they  could  not  be  read  without  the 
permission  of  the  House.  Mr.  SLADE,  without  asking  the  per 
mission  of  the  House,  which  he  knew  would  not  be  granted, 
assumed  to  understand  the  prohibition  as  extending  only  to  him 
self  personally,  said  :  "  Then  I send  them  to  the  cleric'  let  him 
read  them"  The  Speaker  decided  that  this  was  equally  against 
the  rule.  Then  Mr.  GRIFFIN  withdrew  the  objection,  and  Mr. 
SLADE  proceeded  to  read  the  papers,  and  to  comment  upon  them 
as  he  went  on,  and  was  about  to  go  back  to  the  State  of  Vir 
ginia,  and  show  what  had  been  the  feeling  there  on  the  subject 
of  slavery  previous  to  the  date  of  Dr.  FRANKLIN'S  memorial : 

Mr.  KHETT,  of  South  Carolina,  inquired  of  the  Chair  what 
the  opinions  of  Virginia  fifty  years  ago  had  to  do  with  the  case  ? 
The  Speaker  was  about  to  reply,  'when  Mr.  WISE  rose  with 
warmth,  and  said :  "  lie  has  discussed  the  whole  abstract 
question  of  slavery  ;  of  slavery  in  my  own  district ;  and  I  now 
ask  all  my  colleagues  to  retire  with  me  from  this  hall."  Mr. 
SLADE  reminded  the  Speaker  that  he  had  not  yielded  the  floor  ; 
but  his  progress  was  impeded  by  the  condition  of  the  House, 
and  the  many  exclamations  of  members,  among  whom  Mr. 
HALSEY,  of  Georgia,  was  heard  calling  on  the  Georgia  delega 
tion  to  withdraw  with  him  ;  and  Mr.  RIIETT  was  heard  pro- 


122  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTKOVEKSY. 

claiming  that  the  South  Carolina  members  had  already  con 
sulted  together,  and  agreed  to  have  a  meeting  at  three  o'clock 
in  the  committee  room  of  the  District  of  Columbia.  Here  the 
Speaker  interposed  to  calm  the  House,  standing  up  in  his  place 
and  saying : 

"  The  gentleman  from  Vermont  had  been  reminded  by  the 
Chair  that  the  discussion  of  slavery,  as  existing  within  the 
States,  was  not  in  order  ;  when  he  was  desirous  to  read  a  paper 
and  it  was  objected  to,  the  Chair  had  stopped  him ;  but  the 
objection  had  been  withdrawn,  and  Mr.  SLADE  had  been  suffered 
to  proceed ;  he  was  now  about  to  read  another  paper,  and  ob 
jection  wras  made ;  the  Chair  would,  therefore,  take  the  ques 
tion  on  permitting  it  to  be  read." 

Many  members  rose,  all  addressing  the  Chair  at  the  same 
time,  and  many  members  leaving  the  hall,  and  a  general  scene 
of  noise  and  confusion  prevailing.  Mr.  RHETT  succeeded  in 
raising  his  voice  above  the  roar  of  the  tempest  which  raged  in 
the  House,  and  invited  the  entire  delegations  from  all  the  slave 
States  to  retire  from  the  hall  forthwith,  and  meet  in  the  com 
mittee  room  of  the  District  of  Columbia.  The  Speaker  again 
essayed  to  calm  the  House,  and  again  standing  up  in  his  place, 
he  recapitulated  his  attempts  to  preserve  order,  and  vindicated 
the  correctness  of  his  own  conduct,  seemingly  impugned  by 
many:  "  What  his  personal  feelings  were  on  the  subject  (he 
was  from  a  slave  State)  might  easily  be  conjectured.  He  had 
endeavored  to  enforce  the  rules.  Had  it  been  in  his  power  to 
restrain  the  discussion,  he  should  promptly  have  exercised  the 
power  ;  but  it  was  not."  Mr.  SLADE,  continuing,  said  the  paper 
which  he  wished  to  read  was  of  the  Continental  Congress  of 

O 

1Y74.  The  Speaker  was  about  to  put  the  question  on  leave, 
when  Mr.  COST  JOHNSON,  of  Maryland,  inquired  whether  it 
wrould  be  in  order  to  force  the  House  to  vote  that  the  member 
from  Vermont  be  not  permitted  to  proceed?  The  Speaker 
replied  it  would  not.  Then  Mr.  JAMES  J.  McKAY,  of  North 
Carolina — a  clear,  cool-headed,  sagacious  man — interposed  the 
objection  which  headed  Mr.  SLADE.  There  was  a  rule  of  the 
House,  that  when  a  member  was  called  to  order  he  should  take 
his  seat ;  and  if  decided  to  be  out  of  order,  he  should  not  be 
allowed  to  speak  again,  except  on  leave  of  the  House.  Mr. 


SECESSION    OF   SOUTHERN   MEMBERS.  123 

MC!VAY  judged  this  to  be  a  proper  occasion  for  the  enforcement 
of  that  rule  ;  and  stood  up  and  said  : 

"  That  the  gentleman  had  been  pronounced  out  of  order  in 
discussing  slavery  in  the  States ;  and  the  rule  declared  that 
when  a  member  was  so  pronounced  by  the  Chair,  he  should 
take  his  seat,  and  if  any  one  objected  to  his  proceeding  again,  he 
should  not  do  so  unless  by  leave  of  the  House.  Mr.  McKAY 
did  now  object  to  the  gentleman  from  Yermont  proceeding  any 
further." 

Redoubled  noise  and  confusion  ensued,  a  crowd  of  mem 
bers  rising  and  speaking  at  once,  who  eventually  yielded  to  the 
resounding  blows  of  the  Speaker's  hammer  upon  the  lid  of  his 
desk,  and  his  apparent  desire  to  read  something  to  the  House, 
as  he  held  a  book  (recognized  to  be  that  of  the  rules)  in  his 
hand.  Obtaining  quiet  so  as  to  enable  himself  to  be  heard,  he 
read  the  rule  referred  to  by  Mr.  McILvy  ;  and  said  that,  as  ob 
jection  had  now  for  the  first  time  been  made  under  that  rule  to 
the  gentleman's  resuming  his  speech,  the  Chair  decided  that  he 
could  not  do  so  without  the  leave  of  the  House.  Mr.  SLADE 
attempted  to  go  on :  the  Speaker  directed  him  to  take  his  seat 
until  the  question  of  leave  should  be  put.  Then  Mr.  SLADE, 
still  keeping  on  his  feet,  asked  leave  to  proceed  as  in  order,, 
saying  he  would  not  discuss  slavery  in  Virginia.  On  that  ques 
tion,  Mr.  ALLEN,  of  Yermont,  asked  the  yeas  and  nays.  Mr. 
KENCIIEE,  of  North  Carolina,  moved  an  adjournment.  Mr.. 
ADAMS,  and  many  others,  demanded  the  yeas  and  nays  on  this 
motion,  which  were  ordered,  and  resulted  in  106  yeas  and  63 
nays — some  fifty  or  sixty  members  having  withdrawn.  This 
opposition  to  adjournment  was  one  of  the  worst  features  of  that 
unhappy  day's  work  ;  the  only  effect  of  keeping  the  House  to 
gether  being  to  increase  irritation,  and  multiply  the  chances  for 
an  outbreak.  From  the  beginning,  Southern  members  had  been 
in  favor  of  it,  and  essayed  to  accomplish  it,  but  were  prevented 
by  the  tenacity  with  which  Mr.  SLADE  kept  possession  of  the 
floor ;  and  now,  at  last,  wrhen  it  was  time  to  adjourn  any  way 
— when  the  House  was  in  a  condition  in  which  no>  good  could 
be  expected,  and  great  harm  might  be  apprehended,  there  were 
sixty- three  members — being  nearly  one-third  of  the  House — 
willing  to  continue  it  in  session.  They  were  : 


124:  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

"  Messrs.  ADAMS,  ALEXANDER,  H.  ALLEN,  J.  "W.  ALLEN,  AY- 
CRIGG,  BELL,  BIDDLE,  BOND,  BORDEN,  BRIGGS,  W.  B.  CALHOUN, 
COFFIN,  CORWIN,  CRANSTON,  CURTIS,  GUSHING,  DARLINGTON, 
DAVIES,  DUNN,  EVANS,  EVERETT,  EWING,  J.  FLETCHER,  FILL- 
MORE,  GOODE,  GRENNELL,  HALEY,  HALL,  BLASTINGS,  HENRY, 
HEROD,  HOFFMAN,  LINCOLN,  MARVIN,  S.  MASON,  MAXWELL, 

McKENNAN,  MlLLIGAN,  M.    MoRRIS,  C.  MoRRIS,  T^AYLOR,  NoYES, 

OGLE,  PARMENTER,  PATTERSON,  PECK,  PHILLIPS,  POTTS,  POTTER, 
RARIDEN,  RANDOLPH,  HEED,  RIDGWAY,  RUSSEL,  SHEFFER,  SIELEY, 
SLADE,  STRATTON,  TILLINGHAST,  TOLAND,  A.  S.  WHITE,  J.  WHITE, 
E.  WHITTLESEY — 63. 

"  The  House  then  stood  adjourned  ;  and  as  the  adjournment 
was  being  pronounced,  Mr.  CAMPBELL,  of  South  Carolina,  stood 
up  on  a  chair,  and  calling  for  the  attention  of  the  members, 
said : 

"  He  had  been  appointed,  as  one  of  the  Southern  delegation, 
to  announce  that  all  those  gentlemen  who  represented  slave- 
holding  States,  were  invited  to  attend  the  meeting  now  being 
held  in  the  District  Committee  room." 

Members  from  the  slaveholding  States  had  repaired  in  large 
numbers  to  the  room  in  the  basement,  where  they  were  invited 
to  meet.  Various  passions  agitated  them — some  violent.  Ex 
treme  propositions  were  suggested,  of  which  Mr.  RIIETT,  of 
South  Carolina,  in  a  letter  to  his  constituents,  gave  a  full  ac 
count  of  his  own — thus  : 

"  In  .a  private  and  friendly  letter  to  the  editor  of  the  Charles 
ton  Mercury,  amongst  other  events  accompanying  the  memor 
able  secession  of  the  Southern  members  from  the  hall  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  I  stated  to  him,  that  I  had  prepared 
two  resolutions,  drawn  as  amendments  to  the  motion  of  the 
member  from  Vermont,  whilst  he  was  discussing  the  institution 
of  slavery  in  the  South,  '  declaring  that  the  Constitution  having 
failed  to  protect  the  South  in  the  peaceable  possession  and  en 
joyment  of  their  rights  and  peculiar  institutions,  it  was  expe 
dient  that  the  Union  should  be  dissolved ;  and  the  other,  ap 
pointing  a  committee  of  two  members  from  each  State  to  report 
upon  the  best  means  of  peaceably  dissolving  it.'  They  were 
intended  as  amendments  to  a  motion,  to  refer  with  instructions 
to  report  a  bill,  abolishing  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 


SECESSION   OF    SOUTHERN    MEMBERS.  125 

"  I  expected  them  to  share  the  fate  which  inevitably  awaited 
the  original  motion,  so  soon  as  the  floor  could  have  been  ob 
tained,  viz.,  to  be  laid  upon  the  table.  My  design  in  presenting 
them  was  to  place  before  Congress  and  the  people,  what,  in  my 
opinion,  was  the  true  issue  upon  this  great  and  vital  question  ; 
and  to  point  out  the  course  of  policy  by  which  it  should  be  met 
by  the  Southern  States. 

"  But  extreme  counsels  did  not  prevail.  There  were  mem 
bers  present  who  well  considered  that  although  the  provocation 
was  great,  and  the  number  voting  for  such  a  firebrand  motion 
was  deplorably  large,  yet  it  was  but  little  more  than  the  one-fourth 
of  the  House,  and  decidedly  less  than  one-half  of  the  members 
from  the  Free  States  ;  so  that,  even  if  left  to  the  Free  State  vote 
alone,  the  motion  would  have  been  rejected.  But  the  motion 
itself,  and  the  manner  in  which  it  was  supported,  was  most  re 
prehensible  ;  necessarily  leading  to  disorder  in  the  House,  the 
destruction  of  its  harmony  and  capacity  for  useful  legislation, 
tending  to  a  sectional  segregation  of  the  members,  the  alienation 
of  feeling  between  the  North  and  the  South,  and  alarm  to  all 
the  slaveholding  States.  The  evil  required  a  remedy,  but  not 
the  remedy  of  breaking  up  the  Union ;  but  one  which  might 
prevent  the  like  in  future,  while  administering  a  rebuke  upon 
the  past.  That  remedy  was  found  in  adopting  a  proposition  to 
be  offered  to  the  House,  which,  if  agreed  to,  would  close  the 
door  against  any  discussion  upon  abolition  petitions  in  future, 
and  assimilate  the  proceedings  of  the  House  in  that  particular 
to  those  of  the  Senate.  This  proposition  was  put  into  the  hands 
of  Mr.  PATTON,  of  Virginia,  to  be  offered  as  an  amendment  to 
the  rules  at  the  opening  of  the  House  the  next  morning.  It 
was  in  these  words  : 

"  'Resolved,  That  all  petitions,  memorials,  and  papers,  touch 
ing  the  abolition  of  slavery,  or  the  buying,  selling,  or  transfer 
ring  of  slaves  in  any  State,  District,  or  Territory  of  the  United 
States,  be  laid  on  the  table,  without  being  debated,  printed, 
read,  or  referred,  and  that  no  further  action  whatever  shall  be 
had  thereon.' 

"  Accordingly,  at  the  opening  of  the  House,  Mr.  PATTON 
asked  leave  to  submit  the  resolution,  which  was  read  for  in 
formation.  Mr.  ADAMS  objected  to  the  grant  of  leave.  Mr. 


126 


THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 


PATTON  then  moved  a  suspension  of  the  rules,  which  motion 
required  two-thirds  to  sustain  it ;  and,  unless  obtained,  this 
salutary  remedy  for  an  alarming  evil  (which  was  already  in 
force  in  the  Senate)  could  not  be  offered.  It  was  a  test  motion, 
and  on  which  the  opponents  of  abolition  agitation  in  the  House 
required  all  their  strength  ;  for,  imless  two  to  one,  they  were 
defeated.  Happily,  the  two  to  one  were  ready,  and  on  taking 
the  yeas  and  nays,  demanded  by  an  abolition  member,  (to  keep 
his  friends  to  the  track,  and  to  hold  the  free  State  anti-abolition 
ists  to  their  responsibility  at  home,)  the  result  stood  135  yeas  to 
60  nays  ;  the  full  two-thirds  and  fifteen  over."— BENTON'S  Thirty 
Years'  View,  vol.  ii.,  p.  150. 

ME.    CALnOUN's   RESOLUTIONS — FRIDAY,    JANUARY    12,    1838. 

1.  fiesolved,  That,  in  the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution, 
the  States  adopting  the  same  acted,  severally,  as  free,  independ 
ent,  and  sovereign  States  ;  and  that  each  for  itself,  by  its  own 
voluntary  assent,  entered  the  Union  with  the  view  to  its  in 
creased  security  against  all  dangers,  domestic  as  well  as  foreign, 
and  the  more  perfect  and  secure  enjoyment  of  its  advantages — 
natural,  political,  and  social. 

2.  Resolved,  That,  in  delegating  a  portion  of  their  powers  to 
be  exercised  by  the  Federal  Government,  the  States  retained, 
severally,  the  exclusive  and  sole  right  over  their  own  domestic 
institutions  and  police,  to  the  full  extent  to  which  those  powers 
were  not  thus  delegated,  and  are  alone  responsible  for  them ; 
and  that  any  intermeddling  of  any  one  or  more  States,  or  a 
combination  of  their  citizens,  with  the  domestic  institutions  and 
police  of  the  others,  on  any  ground,  political,  moral,  or  religious, 
or  under  any  pretext  whatever,  with  the  view  to  their  altera 
tion  or  subversion,  is  not  warranted  by  the  Constitution,  tending 
to  endanger  the  domestic  peace  and  tranquillity  of  the  States 
interfered  with,  subversive  of  the  objects  for  which  the  Consti 
tution  was  formed,  and,  by  necessary  consequence,  tending  to 
weaken  and  destroy  the  Union  itself. 

3.  Resolved,  That    this    Government  was    instituted    and 
adopted  by  the  several  States  of  this  Union  as  a  common  agent, 
in  order  to  carry  into  effect  the  powers  which  they  had  dele- 


127 

gated  by  the  Constitution  for  their  mutual  security  and  pros 
perity,  and  that,  in  fulfilment  of  this  high  and  sacred  trust,  this 
Government  is  bound  so  to  exercise  its  powers,  as  not  to  inter 
fere  with  the  stability  and  security  of  the  domestic  institutions 
of  the  States  that  compose  the  Union  ;  and  that  it  is  the  solemn 
duty  of  the  Government  to  resist,  to  the  extent  of  its  constitu 
tional  power,  all  attempts  by  one  portion  of  the  Union  to  use 
it  as  an  instrument  to  attack  the  domestic  institutions  of  another, 
or  to  weaken  or  destroy  such  institutions. 

4.  Resolved,  That  domestic  slavery,  as  it  exists  in  the  South 
ern  and  Western  States  of  this  Union,  composes  an  important 
part  of  their  domestic  institutions,  inherited  from  their  ancestors, 
and  existing  at  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  by  which  it  is 
recognized  as  constituting  an  important  element  in  the  appor 
tionment  of  powers  among  the  States,  and  that  no  change  of 
opinion  or  feeling  on  the  part  of  the  other  States  of  the  Union 
in  relation  to  it,  can  justify  them  or  their  citizens  in  open  and 
systematic  attacks  thereon,  with  the  view  to  its  overthrow  ;  and 
that  all  such  attacks  are  in  manifest  violation  of  the  mutual  and 
solemn  pledge  to  protect  and  defend  each  other,  given  by  the 
States  respectively,  on  entering  into  the  Constitutional  compact 
which  formed  the  Union,  and  as  such  are  a  manifest  breach  of 
faith,  and  a  violation  of  the  most  solemn  obligations. 

5.  Resolved^  That  the  interference  by  the  citizens  of  any  of 
the  States,  with  the  view  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  this 
District,  is  endangering  the  rights  and  security  of  the  people  of 
the  District,  and  that  any  act  or  measure  of  Congress  designed 
to  abolish  slavery  in  this  District,  would  be  a  violation  of  the 
faith  implied  in  the  cessions  by  the  States  of  Virginia  and  Mary 
land,  a  just  cause  of  alarm  to  the  people  of  the  slaveholding 
States,  and  have  a  direct  and  inevitable  tendency  to  disturb 
and  endanger  the  Union. 

6.  And  Resolved^  That  any  attempt  of  Congress  to  abolish 
slavery  in  any  Territory  of  the  United  States  in  which  it  exists, 
would  create  serious  alarm  and  just  apprehension  in  the  States 
sustaining  that  domestic  institution  ;  would  be  a  violation  of 
good  faith  towards  the  inhabitants  of  any  such  Territory  who 
have  been  permitted  to  settle  with,  and  hold  slaves  therein,  be 
cause  the  people  of  any  such  Territory  have  not  asked  for  the 


128  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

abolition  of  slavery  therein,  and  because,  when  any  such  Terri 
tory  shall  be  admitted  into  the  Union  as  a  State,  the  people 
thereof  will  be  entitled  to  decide  that  question  exclusively  for 
themselves. 

The  final  vote  upon  the  adoption  of  these  resolutions,  was  : 

YEAS — Messrs.  ALLEN,  BAYARD,  BENTON.  BLACK,  BROWN, 
BUCHANAN,  CALHOUN,  CLAY  of  Alabama,  CLAY  of  Ky.,  CRIT- 
TENDEN,  CUTHBERT,  FuLTON,  GRUNDY,  HuBBARD,  KlNG,  LuMPKIN, 
LYON,  MERRICK,  NICHOLAS,  NILES,  NORVELL,  PIERCE,  PRESTON, 
RIVES,  ROANE,  ROBINSON,  SEVIER,  SMITH  of  Connecticut,  STRANGE, 
TIPTON,  WALKER,  WHITE,  WILLIAMS,  WRIGHT,  YOUNG — 35. 

NAYS — Messrs.  CLAYTON,  of  Delaware,  DAVIS,  KNIGHT,  Mc- 
KEAN,  of  Pennsylvania,  PRENTISS,  ROBBINS,  SMITH,  of  Indiana, 
SWIFT,  and  WEBSTER — 9. 

Massachusetts,  Yermont,  and  Rhode  Island  were  the  only 
States  that  voted  in  the  negative. 

EEMARKS. 

1.  At  the  period  of  which  this  chapter  treats,  the  sentiments 
of  the  people  in  the  several  Northern  States  had  undergone  a 
great  change  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  since  the  formation  of 
the  Federal  Constitution,  and  especially  since  the  Declaration 
of  Independence.  While  the  people  of  those  States  possessed 
slaves,  they  could  form  an  estimate  of  the  advantages  and  dis 
advantages,  the  rectitude  or  the  impropriety  of  slavery,  from 
their  own  observation  of  its  practical  workings.  Before  the 
American  Revolution,  some  of  the  best  Christians  in  the  North 
ern  section  owned  slaves,  as  now  some  of  the  best  Christians  at 
the  South  do.  Slavery  was  sanctioned  by  the  British  Govern 
ment,  and  by  the  Colonial  Legislatures ;  by  statesmen  and  by 
clergymen.  The  relations  of  "  superiors,  inferiors,  and  equals," 
and  the  correlative  duties  of  masters  and  servants  were  recog 
nized,  not  only  in  catechisms,  but  in  the  public  instructions  of 
the  sanctuary.  In  1749,  the  celebrated  WHITEFIELD  thus  wrote : 
"  One  negro  has  been  given  me  ;  some  more  I  propose  to  pur 
chase  this  week."  "  This  confirms  me  in  the  opinion  that 
Georgia  never  can  be  a  flourishing  province,  without  negroes 
are  allowed." 


EEMAEKS.  129 

But  at  this  period  in  Vermont,  and  in  Massachusetts,  where 
it  had  ceased  to  exist  for  nearly  sixty  years  or  for  two  genera 
tions,  and  in  other  Northern  States,  there  were  those  who  be 
lieved  that  they  understood  the  subject  of  slavery  better  than 
those  in  the  Southern  States  who  had  seen  its  practical  work 
ings. 

2.  There  were  at  the  time  several  classes  of  abolitionists,  who 
urged  Congress  to  emancipate  the  slaves  in  the  District  of  Co 
lumbia  : 

a.  Those  who  were  under  the  influence  of  a  generous,  yet 
unreflecting  philanthropy,  and  who,  from  their  disregard  of  con 
stitutional  rights  and  obligations,  were  characterized  as  having 
"  hearts  larger  than  their  heads." 

~b.  Those  who  believed  that  the  Constitution  authorized  the 
abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  who  felt 
disposed  to  use  all  constitutionl  means  to  abolish  slavery  through 
out  the  land. 

c.  Those  who  would  free  the  slaves  on  the  ground  of  natural 
rights  as  stated  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  which  they 
placed  on  a  level  with  the  Constitution,  or  above  it.     Such  de 
clared  that  the  "  Federal  Constitution  has  neither  any  moral 
nor  political  right  to  tolerate  slavery  in  any  of  the  States  be 
longing  to  the  Federal  Union,  for  a  single  day." 

d.  Those  who,  from  a  real  or  a  pretended  regard  for  the 
right  of  petition,  signed  petitions  to  vindicate  that  right ;  while 
they  professed  to  care  very  little   about  the  object  petitioned 
for. 

e.  Those  who  wished  to  promote  political  agitation  for  party 
purposes. 

f.  Those  who  hated  slavery  and  slaveholders  ;  and  who,  by 
memorials  and  petitions,  could  vent  their  wrath  in  the  language 
of  vituperation. 

Petitioning  was  the  fashion  of  the  times  in  some  of  the  States. 
JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS,  the  champion  of  the  North,  declared  on 
one  occasion  in  Congress,  that  he  had  before  him  350  petitions 
on  which  were  from  34,000  to  35,000  names. 

3.  In  opposition  to  these  petitions  and  memorials,  it  was  said 
in  Congress  and  elsewhere : 

a.  That  they  were  an  abuse  of  the  right  granted  by  the  Con- 


130  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

stitution  "  peaceably  to  assemble  and  petition  for  the  redress  of 
grievances,"  viz.,  their  own  grievances.  Slavery  was  no  new 
thing,  but  the  existence  of  slavery  as  an  institution  recognized 
by  the  Constitution,  and  the  right  of  property  in  slaves  as  re 
cognized  in  the  Constitution,  is  not  a  grievance  under  the  Con 
stitution  to  the  people  of  Vermont.  "The  oppressed  subject 
has  a  right  to  petition  Government  for  the  redress  of  griev 
ances."  But  the  existence  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Colum 
bia  is  not  a  grievance  to  the  people  of  Vermont ;  but  the  abo 
lition  of  slavery,  in  opposition  to  the  wishes  of  slaveholders  in 
the  District  of  Columbia,  would  be  a  grievance  to  them.  In 
the  early  days  of  the  Republic,  the  existence  of  slavery  in  the 
South  was  not  thought  of  as  a  "  grievance." 

1).  That  a  petition  for  a  general  object  like  that  is  imperti 
nent,  inasmuch  as  Congress  is  better  acquainted  with  the  subject 
than  the  men,  women,  and  children,  who  have  never  been  in 
the  District.  Such  a  petition  implies  that  Congress  v/ill  not 
attend  to  its  duties  without  admonition. 

c.  That  the  arguments  used  against  slavery  in  the  District 
of  Columbia  are  covertly  or  openly  intended  to  operate  against 
slavery  elsewhere  ;  and  that  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  Dis 
trict  would  be  the  entering  wedge  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  in 
the  States,  as  soon  as  Congress  could  get  the  power,  by  altering 
the  Constitution. 

d.  That  the  arguments  or  denunciations  against  slavery  have 
the  effect  to  create  prejudice  against  slaveholders  and  slave- 
holding  States. 

e.  That  some  of  these  petitions  contain  falsehoods,  and  slan 
ders,  and  insulting  statements,  concerning  slaveholders,  and  are 
therefore  adapted  to  produce  a  spirit  of  disunion. 

f.  That  some  of  the  petitions  were  got  up  in  order  to  place 
certain  members  of  Congress  in  the  awkward  position  of  pre 
senting  petitions  to  which  they  were  opposed. 

4.  At  the  first  presentation  of  these  petitions  in  Congress,  the 
general  sentiment  in  both  Houses  was  opposed  to  them,  as  was 
the  sentiment  of  the  great  Northern  community  Abolitionists 
were  regarded  with  distrust  or  abhorrence.  But  in  time  anti- 
slavery  sentiments  so  far  prevailed,  that  candidates  found  an 
appeal  to  sectional  feelings  an  effectual  way  to  secure  an  elec- 


REMARKS.  131 

tion.  And  after  they  had  secured  an  election  by  such  an  ap 
peal,  they  felt  themselves  obliged  to  carry  out  in  Congress  the 
principles  upon  which  they  were  elected. 

5.  In  Congress,  there  was  a  great  diversity  of  opinion  as  to 
what  course  should  be  taken  with  those  petitions : 

a.  Some  of  the  petitions  were  received  and  reported  on  ad 
versely  without  producing  any  beneficial  effect,  or  lessening  the 
number  of  petitions. — See  Mr.  fives'  speech,  Dec.  1837. 

1).  Some  of  them  were  received  and  laid  on  the  table. 

c.  Some  of  them  were  disposed  of  by  a  motion  to  lay  the 
question  of  reception  on  the  table. 

None  of  these  modes  satisfied  the  anti-slavery  views  of  the 
Northern  delegations  in  Congress  ;  and  many  even  of  the  mem 
bers  who  were  opposed  to  the  prayer  of  the  petitioners,  were 
disposed  to  complain  that  the  right  of  petition  was  restricted 
by  the  latter  course. 

G.  In  February,  Mr.  JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS,  who,  like  some 
others  in  or  out  of  the  House,  was  disposed  to  magnify  the  right 
of  petition  above  some  other  rights,  presented  a  petition  from 
"  some  ladies  in  Fredericksburg,  Virginia,"  of  whom  Mr.  PAT- 
TON,  member  from  that  place,  declared  that  he  believed  all  of 
them  to  be  free  negroes  of  a  bad  character.  Mr.  ADAMS  also 
tendered  a  petition  from  twenty-two  persons,  who  declared 
themselves  to  be  slaves.  And  (June,  1838)  he  referred  to  his 
tendering  such  a  petition.  This  act  of  his  was  severely  con 
demned  by  individuals  in  the  House.  He  escaped  a  vote  of 
censure  which  was  threatened.  But  the  House  voted  "  That 
slaves  do  not  possess  the  right  of  petition,  secured  to  the  people 
of  the  United  States  by  the  Constitution."  The  vote  was  162  in 
the  affirmative  and  18  in  the  negative. 

7.  A  portion  of  the  multitude  of  petitions  offered  during  the 
Administration  of  Mr.  VAN  BUREN,  were  got  up  at  the  instiga 
tion  of  members  of  Congress,  who  for  one  reason  and  another 
took  pleasure  in  presenting  them.  It  was  supposed  that  Mr. 
ADAMS,  under  the  influence  of  a  deep  resentment  against  tho 
South,  took  a  pleasure  in  presenting  petitions  for  objects  for 
which  he  himself  would  not  vote. 

While  the  abolitionists  were  thus  spreading  their  arguments 
and  denunciations  against  slavery  before  the  representatives  of 


132  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

the  nation  at  "Washington,  and  also  before  the  State  Legislatures 
at  the  North,  they  were  sending  incendiary  publications  through 
the  Southern  States  by  mail  and  otherwise.  As  these  publica 
tions  sprang  from  bitter  sectional  feelings  at  the  North,  so  they 
created  bitter  sectional  feelings  at  the  South.  President  JACK 
SON,  in  his  message,  Dec.  1835,  thus  introduced  the  subject  to 
the  notice  of  Congress :  "  I  must  also  invite  your  attention  to 
the  painful  excitement  produced  in  the  South,  by  attempts  to 
circulate  through  the  mails  inflammatory  appeals  addressed 
to  the  passions  of  the  slaves,  in  prints  and  in  various  publica 
tions  calculated  to  stimulate  them  to  insurrection,  and  to  pro 
duce  all  the  horrors  of  a  civil  war." 

The  effect  of  these  petitions  signed  by  hundreds  of  thou 
sands  of  petitioners  was  disastrous  in  producing  a  bitter  sec 
tional  spirit  throughout  the  country. 

In  justice  to  the  North  it  ought  to  be  added,  that  some  of 
the  ablest  and  best  men  in  that  section  were  utterly  opposed  to 
the  movement,  as  wrong  in  the  end  aimed  at,  wrong  in  the 
means  used,  and  wrong  in  the  spirit  with  which  it  was  con 
ducted.  And  some  of  them  took  the  ground  that  they  were 
wrong  as  a  violation  of  the  principles  of  international  law  which 
ought  to  control  the  several  States  in  their  relations  to  each 
other  as  sovereignties. 

There  were  those  who  felt  that  the  abolition  societies  in  the 
several  States  ought  to  be  suppressed  by  State  authority.  They 
had  the  same  opinion  of  them  which  General  WASHINGTON  ex 
pressed  concerning  the  self-constituted  societies  in  1794.  They 
considered  their  influence  upon  the  country  through  their  lec 
tures  and  publications  as  malign. 


CHAPTER  XL 

GENERAL   WILLIAM   HENRY   HARRISON   AND  JOHN   TYLER. 
MARCH  4,  1841— MARCH  4,  1845. 

GENERAL  HARRISON  was  elected  by  the  "Whig  party,  and  by 
the  votes  of  Northern  States.  There  was  a  wide-spread  enthu 
siasm  in  his  favor,  created,  it  was  said,  to  some  extent,  by  log 
cabins,  coon-skins,  hard  cider,  and  the  influence  of  banks.  So 
strong  were  the  party  feelings,  that  sectional  considerations  were, 
for  the  time,  ignored.  Both  General  HARRISON  and  Mr.  TYLER 
were  natives  of  Virginia.  On  the  death  of  the  former,  about  a 
month  after  his  inauguration,  the  latter  constitutionally  became 
President. 

During  his  administration,  sectional  differences  of  opinion 
manifested  themselves  both  in  Congress  and  in  the  country  at 
large.  The  bankrupt  bill,  an  increase  of  the  tariff,  the  distribu 
tion  of  the  proceeds  of  the  public  lands,  the  establishment  of  a 
national  bank,  the  repeal  of  the  sub-treasury,  were  generally 
favored  by  Northern  members  and  opposed  by  Southern. 

ANNEXATION    OF   TEXAS. 

But  the  principal  source  of  sectional  feeling  during  the  ad 
ministration  of  President  TYLER,  was  the  annexation  of  Texas, 
of  which  he  was  strongly  in  favor.  Texas  had  belonged  to  the 
United  States  from  1803,  when  Louisiana  was  ceded,  until  1810, 
when,  by  a  great  political  mistake,  it  was  dismembered  from 
the  United  States,  and  attached  to  Mexico.  The  people  of 
Texas  were  in  favor  of  annexation.  It  would  add  to  the  strength 
of  the  United  States,  and  give  them,  with  some  exceptions,  tho 
monopoly  of  the  cotton  trade  of  the  world.  It  would  help  to 


134:  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

keep  the  slave  States  on  an  equality  with  the  non-slave  States. 
It  would  prevent  the  existence  of  a  dangerous  rival  on  our  bor 
ders,  who  might  make  treaties  with  Great  Britain  to  our  injury. 
Mr.  ADAMS,  when  President,  aided  by  Mr.  CLAY,  Secretary  of 
State,  in  1825,  and  then  again  in  1827,  endeavored  to  secure 
the  annexation  of  Texas.  General  JACKSON,  aided  by  Mr.  YAN 
BUREN,  Secretary  of  State,  in  1829  ;  and  again  in  1833,  aided 
by  his  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  LIVINGSTON  ;  and  again  in  1835, 
aided  by  his  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  FORSYTH,  endeavored  to 
secure  the  annexation  of  Texas.  For  this  purpose  he  offered 
five  millions  of  dollars.  It  would  be  of  great  commercial 
advantage  to  the  Union,  which  otherwise  a  foreign  nation  would 
enjoy.  The  sentiment  of  the  country,  taken  as  a  whole,  was  in 
favor  of  annexation. 

In  opposition,  it  was  asserted  that  the  measure  was  uncon 
stitutional  ;  that  it  would  involve  the  country  in  war  with 
Mexico ;  that  it  would  increase  the  slave  population  of  the 
country.  JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS  declared  in  substance  that,  if 
Texas  were  free  from  slavery,  and  the  consent  of  Mexico  were 
obtained,  he  would  vote  for  the  annexation. 

So  high  did  sectional  feeling  rise  while  the  question  was 
pending,  that,  in  some  of  the  Southern  States,  the  motto  was 
"  Texas  or  disunion  ;  "  while,  in  some  of  the  Northern  States, 
tens  of  thousands  of  names  were  affixed  to  petitions  against  the 
measure.  In  Massachusetts,  so  strong  was  the  opposition,  that 
the  Senate  passed  a  resolution  censuring  their  Senators  in  Con 
gress,  Messrs.  BATES  and  CHOATE.  Indeed,,  the  spirit  manifested 
in  that  State  came  up  to  the  measure  of  the  spirit  of  disunion 
on  the  purchase  and  admission  of  Louisiana. 

The  annexation  of  Texas  was  a  measure  properly  belonging 
to  Mr.  TYLER'S  administration,  though  it  was  not  completed 
until  Mr.  POLK  was  in  the  Presidential  chair,  December  16, 
1845.  The  final  vote  in  the  Senate  was  31  in  favor,  14:  against ; 
and  in  the  House,  141  in  favor  and  56  against. 

On  February  5,  1844,  Mr.  BEARDSLEY,  of  New  York,  present 
ed  a  petition  from  sundry  citizens  of  New  York,  praying  for  an 
amendment  to  the  Constitution,  so  as  to  effect  the  abolition  of 
slavery  in  the  Southern  States.  Mr.  ADAMS  presented  the  reso 
lutions  of  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts,  "  asking  for  an 
amendment  to  the  Constitution,  so  as  to  exclude  that  portion  of 


ANNEXATION   OF   TEXAS.  135 

the  representation  of  the  Southern  States  which  is  based  on  their 
slave  population."  In  the  Senate,  Mr.  BATES  presented  the 
same  resolves  of  the  Massachusetts  Legislature.  The  Senate 
refused  to  print  them. 

March  22,  1844. — "  Mr.  DEOMGOOLE,  of  Virginia,  from  the 
select  committee  on  the  resolutions  of  the  Legislatures  of  Vir 
ginia  and  Alabama  on  the  proposed  amendment  to  the  Consti 
tution  so  as  to  prevent  slave  representation,  which  was  suggested 
by  resolutions  from  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts,  made  a 
report,  accompanied  by  several  resolutions,  on  which  he  called 
for  the  yeas  and  nays,  and  demanded  the  previous  question." 

"Resolved  by  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States,  That  the  rule  established  in  the  Constitution  as  the  basis  of 
representation  and  direct  taxation,  resulting  from  a  spirit  of  con 
cession  and  compromise  essential  to  the  formation  and  preserva 
tion  of  the  Union  of  the  States,  ought  to  be  held  sacred  by  the 
friends  of  the  Union."  This  resolution  passed  by  158  yeas,  18 
nays. 

"  Resolved,  That  no  proposition  to  alter  or  amend  the  Consti 
tution,  in  relation  to  representation  or  direct  taxation  among  the 
States,  ought  to  be  recommended  by  Congress,  but  that  every 
such  proposition  ought  to  be  promptly  and  decisively  con 
demned."  This  resolve  was  passed  by  a  vote  of  127  yeas,  41 
nays. 

In  the  preamble  to  the  report,  the  committee  say :  "  This 
proposition  (of  Massachusetts)  is  strongly  and  unanimously  con 
demned  by  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia,  and  is  regarded, 
in  truth,  as  a  proposition  virtually  to  dissolve  the  Union.  The 
committee,  believing  that  the  basis  of  representation  and  direct 
taxation,  as  regulated  in  the  Constitution,  was  the  result  of  a 
spirit  of  concession  and  compromise  which  was  indispensable  to 
the  Union  of  the  States,  and  to  the  formation  and  ratification  of 
that  Constitution  as  ordained  and  established,  are  of  opinion 
that  the  proposed  alteration  of  the  compromise  would  produce 
a  peaceable  or  violent  dissolution  of  the  Union." 

EEMAEKS. 

1.  After  the  election  of  General  HAEEISON,  and  during  the 
next  four  years,  petitions  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  Dis- 


136  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

trict  of  Columbia  became  comparatively  infrequent.  Why  was 
this  ?  Was  it  because  fche  public  sensibility  had  become  im 
paired  by  being  so  long  wrought  upon  ?  Or  was  it  because  the 
anti-slavery  leaders  in  the  agitation  found  a  more  exciting  topic 
in  Texas  ?  Or  was  it  because  the  Whigs,  in  Congress  and  out 
of  Congress,  having  by  the  election  come  into  power,  no  longer 
found  agitation  desirable  ?  Mr.  CLAY  was  not  in  favor  of  anti- 
slavery  agitation,  though  some  of  his  party  had  been. 

2.  The  persistent   opposition   to   the   annexation   of  Texas 
sprang  from  opposition  to  slavery,  and  the  opposition  to  slavery 
was,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  owing  to  a  reluctance  to  in 
creasing  the  political  power  of  the  Southern  section  of  the 
country. 

3.  The  resolution  of  the  Massachusetts  Legislature,  instruct 
ing  their  Senators,  and  requesting  the  representatives  of  that 
State  to  vote  for  such  an  amendment  of  the  Constitution  as  will 
allow  only  free  persons  to  be  represented,  or,  in  other  words,  to 
abrogate  slave  representation,  excited  deep   dissatisfaction  in 
Congress. 

Mr.  KING,  of  the  Senate,  said :  "  He  could  not  but  regret 
that  it  had  become  the  duty  of  the  honorable  Senator  from 
Massachusetts  (Mr.  BATES)  to  present  to  the  Senate  a  proposition 
from  the  Legislature  of  his  State  to  dissolve  the  Union.  Was 
there  a  man  within  the  hearing  of  his  voice  that  believed,  for 
one  moment,  that  such  an  amendment  could  be  made  ?  and  if 
it  could  be,  by  any  possibility,  that  the  Federal  Government 
would  last  twenty-four  hours  after  it  was  made  ?  It  is  a  resolu 
tion  framed  almost  identically  like  that  which  had  been  con 
cocted  by  inhabitants  of  Massachusetts,  in  another  period  in  the 
history  of  this  Government.  It  is  such  as  was  during  the  last 
war  passed  by  the  Hartford  Convention.  *  *  That  the  General 
Assembly  of  Massachusetts  should  take  up  one  of  these  resolu 
tions,  after  so  many  attempts  to  explain  them  away,  and  get 
clear  of  the  odium  connected  with  them,  and  to  adopt  its  very 
words,  showed  a  feeling  of  hostility  to  an  institution  which,  if 
persisted  in,  was  calculated  to  sap  the  very  foundations  of  the 
Government  itself." 


CHAPTER  XIL 

JAMES   K.    POLKAS   ADMINISTRATION. 
MARCH  4,  1845— MARCH  4,  1849. 

ME.  POLK  was  elected  President  by  170  electoral  votes, 
against  105  csust  for  Mr.  CLAY.  The  Southern  States  generally 
voted  for  the  former.  He  was  in  favor  of  a  strict  construction 
of  the  Constitution  in  opposition  to  one  that  is  broad  or  loose. 
In  his  inaugural  address,  he  spoke  in  the  following  terms  on 
that  point :  "  It  will  be  my  first  care  to  administer  the  Govern 
ment  in  the  true  spirit  of  that  instrument,  and  to  assume  no 
powers  not  expressly  or  clearly  implied  in  its  terms.  The  Gov 
ernment  of  the  United  States  is  one  of  delegated  and  limited 
powers ;  and  it  is  by  a  strict  adherence  to  the  clearly  granted 
powers,  and  by  abstaining  from  the  exercise  of  doubtful  or  un 
authorized  implied  powers,  that  we  have  the  only  sure  guar 
antee  against  the  recurrence  of  those  unfortunate  collisions  be 
tween  the  Federal  and  State  authorities  which  have,  occasion 
ally,  so  much  disturbed  the  harmony  of  our  system,  and  even 
threatened  the  perpetuity  of  our  glorious  Union."  "  One  great 
object  of  the  Constitution  was  to  restrain  majorities  from  op 
pressing  minorities,  or  encroaching  on  their  just  rights.  Minor 
ities  have  a  right  to  appeal  to  the  Constitution,  as  a  shield 
against  such  oppression." 

THE   TARIFF   OF   1846. 

The  compromise  tariff  of  1833,  according  to  the  provisions 
of  the  bill,  continued  in  operation  until  1841.  In  that  year  the 
Home  League  was  formed,  with  the  same  object  in  view  as  the 


138  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

Harrisburg  Convention,  namely,  restoring  high  duties.  The 
doctrines  of  the  Home  League  were  approved  by  Mr.  CLAY  and 
his  political  friends.  A  bill  was  brought  in,  which  passed  in 
1842.  This  bill  was  denounced  by  Mr.  CALHOUX.  In  his 
speech  he  said :  "  I  shall  not  dwell  on  the  fact  that  it  openly 
violates  the  compromise  act,  and  the  pledges  given  by  its 
author  and  by  Governor  DAVIS  of  Massachusetts,  that  if  the 
South  would  adhere  to  the  compromise,  while  it  was  operating 
favorably  for  the  manufacturers,  they  would  stand  by  it  when 
it  came  to  operate  favorably  for  the  South.  I  dwell  not  on 
those  double  breaches  of  plighted  faith,  although  they  are  of  a 
serious  character,  and  likely  to  exercise  a  very  pernicious  influence 
over  our  future  legislation,  by  preventing  amicable  adjustments 
of  questions  that  may  hereafter  threaten  the  peace  of  the  coun 
try."  Mr.  McDuFFiE  characterized  the  tariff  law  of  1842  as  "  a 
foul  and  faithless  violation  of  the  compromise  act."  Mr.  CLAY 
and  the  manufacturers  defended  the  measures  as  necessary  to 
supply  the  wants  of  Government,  which  they  regarded  as  par 
amount  to  other  considerations. 

In  his  message,  Dec.,  1845,  President  POLK  recommended  a 
revision  of  the  Tariff  laws.  He  declared  that  "  the  object  of  im 
posing  duties  011  imports  should  be  to  raise^a  revenue  to  pay 
the  necessary  expenses  of  the  Government.  Congress  may,  un 
doubtedly,  in  the  exercise  of  a  sound  discretion,  discriminate  in 
arranging  the  rates  of  duty  on  different  articles ;  but  the  dis 
criminations  should  be  within  the  revenue  standard,  and  be 
made  with  the  view  to  raise  money  for  the  support  of  Govern 
ment."  "  The  new  Administration  proposed  three  important 
measures  in  relation  to  the  duties :  The  first  to  abandon  the 
protective  theory  in  favor  of  a  revenue  theory,  that  is,  to  reduce 
the  rates  of  duty,  to  levy  them  ad  valorem,  to  make  the  rates 
uniform,  and  to  make  them  payable  in  cash  ;  the  warehouse 
system  to  facilitate  the  carrying  trade ;  and  the  Independent 
treasury,  by  which  the  cash  duties  were  to  be  collected  in  gold 
and  silver  only."  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  EGBERT  J. 
WALKER,  made  an  elaborate  report,  recommending  a  revenue 
tariff  in  opposition  to  a  protective  tariff.  A  bill  was  introduced 
of  such  a  character,  and  was  passed  in  the  House,  July  2, 1846, 
by  114  votes  in  the  affirmative,  and  95  in  the  negative  ;  and  in 


THE   TARIFF   OF    1846.  139 

the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  28  in  the  affirmative,  and  27  in  the  neg 
ative.  The  strength  of  the  South,  in  both  Houses,  was  in  the 
affirmative,  and  the  strength  of  the  North  in  the  negative. 

This  change  in  the  tariff  was  advocated  by  the  Southern 
members  upon  constitutional  grounds,  namely,  that  it  was  a 
change  from  a  tariff  for  protection  which  is  not  authorized  by 
the  Constitution,  unless  that  protection  is  incidental,  to  a  tariff 
for  revision  which  is  the  legitimate  object  of  a  tariff,  and  is 
authorized  by  the  Constitution. 

It  was  opposed  by  Northern  men  on  the  ground,  that  sub 
stantive  protection  had  become  the  policy  of  the  Government ; 
and,  also,  because  the  tariff  of  1846  could  not  be  reasonably  ex 
pected  to  produce  as  large  a  revenue  as  the  tariff  of  1842.  Ex 
perience  proved  that  the  Northern  members  were  mistaken. 
The  average  of  the  tariff  of  1842  was  twenty-six  millions;  the 
average  of  the  tariff  of  1840  was  forty-six  millions.  As  an 
apology  for  the  failure  of  Northern  predictions,  it  should  be 
said  that  the  unexpected  gold  discoveries  in  California  averaged 
at  once  the  exports  and  the  imports,  and  thus  the  revenue. 

Mr.  WEBSTER,  in  the  course  of  his  speech  in  opposition  to 
the  bill,  said  :  "  It  is  not  a  bill  for  the  people.  It  is  not  a  bill 
for  the  masses.  It  is  not  a  bill  to  add  to  the  comfort  of  those 
in  middle  life,  or  the  poor.  It  is  not  a  bill  for  employment.  It 
is  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  Highest  and  most  luxurious  classes 
of  the  country,  and  a  bill  imposing  onerous  duties  on  the  great 
industrial  masses,  and  taking  away  the  means  of  living  from 
labor,  everywhere  throughout  the  land." 

Mr.  McDuFFiE,  in  reply  said  :  "  The  strong  language  of  the 
Senator  from  Massachusetts,  in  characterizing  this  bill  as  an 
aristocratic  measure,  imposes  upon  me  the  duty  of  saying  a  few 
words  before  the  question  is  taken,  to  disabuse  the  public  mind 
of  any  such  impression,  if  any  such  impression  is  made  upon  it. 
The  honorable  Senator  has  asked,  with  great  confidence,  and 
certainly  not  in  the  expectation  of  being  replied  to,  where  is  the 
Democratic  feature  of  this  bill?  Where  is  the  provision  in 
tended  to  operate  in  favor  of  the  laboring  classes  of  the  coun 
try  ?  On  the  contrary  he  goes  on  to  enumerate  certain  articles 
of  luxury  upon  which  the  duties  have  been  reduced,  and  leaving 
it  to  be  inferred  that  these  are  the  great  and  principal  reduc- 


140  Till:    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

tions.  !Now,  Mr.  President,  I  will  point  out  to  the  Senator  the 
Democratic  features  of  this  bill.  It  has  reduced  the  duty  upon 
salt  from  eight  cents  to  half  a  cent.  It  has  reduced  the  duty 
upon  sugar  from  two  and  a  half  cents  to  one  cent  per  pound. 
It  has  reduced  the  duty  on  all  that  class  of  cotton  manufactures, 
whether  white  or  printed,  which  is  consumed  by  the  laborers, 
farmers,  and  mechanics  of  the  United  States,  God  knows  how 
much  !  But  I  sincerely  believe  that  in  this  bill,  on  all  that 
class  of  manufactures  consumed  by  the  poor  and  middle  ranks, 
there  is  a  reduction  of  duties  greater  than  on  any  other  class  of 
articles  contained  in  the  bill  ;  and  I  have  expressed  the  opinion, 
which  I  sincerely  believe,  that  the  repeal  of  the  cotton  mini- 
mums  —  an  invention  which  never  was  known  until  it  was  in 
troduced  in  the  bill  of  181G,  and,  I  believe,  unknown  to  the 
custom  house  laws  of  any  other  country,  so  far  as  my  knowl 
edge  extends  —  I  believe  that  the  striking  out  of  that  will  alone 
enable  the  people  of  the  United  States  to  consume  an  increase 
importation  approaching  to  ten  millions  of  dollars  at  prices 
little  more  than  two-thirds  of  that  which  they  have  now  to 


I  was  obliged  to  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  for  some 
little  evidence  in  favor  of  the  Democratic  character  of  this  bill, 
in  certain  resolutions  passed  in  Boston,  in  the  year  1820,  drawn 
up,  I  believe,  by  the  honorable  member  himself,  and  supported 
and  sustained  by  him  soon  after  the  commencement  of  the 
spirit  which  has  resulted  in  the  establishment  of  the  protective 
system.  The  duties  then  under  the  act  of  1816  were  about  20 
per  cent,  or  25  per  cent,  on  the  great  mass  of  manufactures 
made  out  of  cotton,  wool,  and  iron,  and  all  the  other  duties 
were  corresponding.  The  proposition  was  then  to  enhance  the 
duties  in  about  the  degree  of  enhancement  which  took  place 
under  the  tariff  of  1824  ;  and  it  was  in  opposition  to  this,  that 
a  meeting  of  the  merchants  of  Boston,  in  which  the  honorable 
Senator  from  Massachusetts  bore  a  distinguished  part,  passed 
certain  resolutions  some  of  which  I  now  recollect.  One  of  them 
I  distinctly  remember,  and  it  affirmed  that  the  effect  of  this 
protecting  law  upon  the  manufactures  of  the  country  would 
redound  to  the  benefit  of  great  capitalists,  'and  not  to  that  of 
the  labor  of  the  country.  That  was  a  great  political  propo 
sition. 


THE   TARIFF   OF    1846.  141 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  Does  the  Senator  happen  to  have  those, 
resolutions  in  his  desk  ?  I  have  no  recollection  of  that. 

Mr.  McDuFFiE.  I  am  sorry  to  say  that  I  have  not  got  a 
copy  of  the  resolutions,  but  I  believe  a  copy  can  be  obtained. 

Mr.  WESTCOTT  here  laid  on  the  desk  of  the  Senator  from 
South  Carolina  a  file  of  the  "  Globe,"  which  was  supposed  to 
contain  the  resolutions  referred  to. 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  I  do  not  wish  to  trouble  the  gentleman  now  ; 
at  his  convenience,  perhaps,  he  may  be  able  to  furnish  the  reso 
lutions. 

Mr.  McDuFFiE  proceeded.  This,  sir,  was  one  of  the  resolu 
tions.  Another  was  in  answer  to  the  allegation  that  the  estab 
lishment  of  these  factories  would  give  an  increased  market  to 
the  farmer.  One  of  these  resolutions  was  in  these  words  as  far 
as  I  can  recollect : 

"  They  cannot  perceive  how  the  farming  interest  can  be 
benefited  by  a  law  which  increases  the  price  of  every  thing  that 
they  have  to  buy,  and  diminishes  the  price  of  every  thing  they 
have  to  sell." 

Now,  sir,  I  quote  this  resolution  simply  with  the  view  and 
for  no  other  purpose  than  to  answer  a  very  confident  interrog 
atory  of  the  Senator — where  is  the  Democratic  feature  of  this 
measure  ? 

But,  Mr  President,  I  did  not  intend  to  make  a  speech,  and  I 
will  not  do  so.  As,  ho\vever,  the  Boston  Resolutions  to  which  I 
referred  have  been  handed  to  me  since  I  alluded  to  them,  I  will 
ask  the  Clerk  to  read  them.  [The  Clerk  read  the  resolutions.] 
I  want  to  say  one  word  (Mr.  McD.  added)  on  this  subject  of  the 
revenue.  I  had  very  strong  views  on  that  subject,  but  my  de 
sire  to  see  the  vote  taken  led  me  to  refrain  from  presenting 
them  to  the  Senate,  and  so  prolonging  the  discussion.  I  will 
take  the  article  of  wool,  and  present  a  view  which  seems  to  be 
entirely  overlooked.  He  then  went  on  to  show  that  of  woollens 
and  cottons,  the  increase  of  importation  would  be  very  great 
under  the  new  law,  and  the  revenue  be  correspondingly  aug 
mented.  The  amount  of  increase  from  the  destruction  of  the 
minimums  it  was  impossible  to  calculate. 

Mr.'  WEBSTER  rose  and  said :  The  resolution  read  cannot 
be  the  one  referred  to  by  the  Senator.  I  remember  that  meet- 


142  THE    SECTION AL    CONTROVERSY. 

ing  in  Faneuil  Hall.  I  dare  say  that  may  be  the  regular  ac 
count  of  the  proceedings.  If  it  be  it  cannot  be  the  full  account, 
because  there  was  another  resolution  passed  at  the  same  time 
to  which  my  attention  has  been  frequently  since  called  in  the 
Senate,  and  which  has  not  been  read  in  that  series  of  resolu 
tions.  However,  I  attended  a  meeting.  Whether  I  drew  the 
resolutions  or  assented  to  them  I  do  not  know.  Whether  I 
made  a  speech  on  the  occasion  I  cannot  tell.  But  I  yield  it  all 
to  the  honorable  member.  Consider  me  as  having  drawn  every 
word  of  these  resolutions,  and  as  having  urged  their  adoption 
upon  the  people  assembled.  Suppose  that  to  be  any  way. 
The  first  thing  I  have  got  to  say  now  is,  that  the  honorable 
member  from  South  Carolina  will  admit  that  such  is  the  in 
firmity  of  our  nature  that  an  honest  man  may  change  his  .opin 
ion,  and  he  may  change  it  in  two  or  three  as  well  as  in  twenty 
years.  I  think  the  most  powerful  argument  ever  addressed  to 
the  people  of  the  United  States  against  the  annexation  of  Texas 
was  from  the  Governor  of  South  Carolina ;  and  I  think  the 
greatest  speech  in  favor  of  it  was  made  by  the  Senator  from 
South  Carolina — -eandem  personam  ! 

Mr.  McDuFFiE.  Texas  was  then  an  independent  State  and 
so  recognized. 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  Yes,  and  I  quote  it  for  the  purpose  of  show 
ing  that  an  honest  man  may  change  his  opinion.  Well,  sir,  I 
believe  that  the  honorable  member  from  South  Carolina  was, 
at  the  time  1  had  the  honor  of  being  associated  with  him  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  a  most  powerful  advocate  of  internal 
improvements,  and  raised  his  voice  in  favor  of  that  principle. 

Mr.  McDuFFiE.     Xot  in  favor  of  the  exercise-power. 

Mr.  WEBSTER.     Was  the  power  then  to  be  barren  ? 

Mr.  McDuFFiE.     Only  to  make  surveys. 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  Why  that  was  the  first  step.  He  that  can 
make  a  survey  for  improvements,  can  make  improvements.  I 
believe  the  honorable  gentleman  also  at  one  time  entertained  a 
very  favorable  opinion  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  and  at 
another  time  quite  the  contrary.  Well,  then,  I  stand  before 
the  Senate  as  a  man  who  has  found  occasion  to  change  his 
opinions. 

Mr.  McDurriE.     I  made  no  unkind  imputation. 


THE   TARIFF   OF    1846.  143 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  Certainly  not.  A  word,  sir,  about  these 
resolutions  of  1821.  I  remember  the  state  of  things  very  well. 
The  commercial  people  of  New  England,  in  1821,  were  in  a 
considerable  state  of  alarm.  They  had  commerce  all  over  the 
world.  They  thought  that  a  policy  had  been  begun  at  Wash 
ington  which  would  interfere  with  their  commerce,  and  it  was 
of  that,  that  they  were  afraid.  How  was  this  great  evil,  of 
which  they  had  become  afraid,  fastened  upon  them  ?  By  the 
minimums  put  upon  them  by  South  Carolina  to  cut  off  the 
New  England  India  trade — that's  all.  The  minimum  principle, 
so  odious  now,  was  moved  in  Congress  by  a  most  respectable 
and  distinguished  member  from  South  Carolina  not  now  living. 
It  was  carried  by  South  Carolina  against  every  vote  of  Massa 
chusetts.  I  do  not  think  there  was  a  vote  of  Massachusetts,  not 
one  in  favor  of  the  measure.  "Well,  then,  it  is  not  because  the 
minimum  principle  is  bad  in  itself.  Why,  sir,  minimum  is  now 
spoken  of  here  as  if  it  were  a  Pawnee  Indian,  or  one  of  the 
Camanches  that  eats  up  and  destroys  everybody  and  every  thing. 

Mr.  McDuFFiE.     So  it  does ! 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  Well,  bad  as  it  is,  it  was  introduced  by 
South  Carolina  against  every  vote  of  Massachusetts.  We  all 
now  see  that  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina  is  against  it. 
Well,  then,  in  1820  or  thereabouts,  an  eminent  member  of  Con 
gress  from  Pennsylvania  introduced  a  high  protective  tariff 
bearing  among  certain  other  things  especially  upon  iron.  I 
refer  to  Mr.  BALDWIN,  afterwards  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court. 
That  tariff  went  to  protect  every  thing  out  of  New  England. 
Well,  here  was  New  England  between  the  upper  and  nether 
mill-stone ;  between  the  South  Carolina  tariff  with  its  mini- 
mums  on  cottons  which  cut  off  the  India  trade,  and  the  Penn 
sylvania  tariff.  I  wish  the  gentleman  had  dwelt  a  little  more, 
in  his  address  to  the  Chair,  on  the  effect  of  this  bill  upon  the 
iron  and  coal  of  Pennsylvania.  But  now,  sir,  I  agree,  that 
whether  it  be  owing  to  change  of  opinion  wrought  by  circum 
stances,  by  a  change  in  the  condition  of  things  in  the  country, 
or  otherwise,  I  am  of  opinion  that  in  the  present  state  of  things 
which  has  existed  since  1824,  there  is  no  going  back  from  that 
principle  of  protection  which  was  established  in  1824.  The  law 
of  1824  did  not  pass  with  the  consent  of  Massachusetts.  It  re- 


144  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

ceived  but  one  vote,  I  think,  in  the  entire  delegation  from  Mass 
achusetts  in  both  Houses  of  Congress.  As  I  said  the  other  day, 
New  England  had  been  addicted  to  commerce.  But  she  sup 
posed  the  time  had  come,  when  she  must  conform  herself  to  the 
law  of  the  country  and  invest  her  capital — for  her  labor  was 
her  capital — and  direct  her  industry  to  such  pursuits  as  the 
country  had  promised  to  protect  and  uphold.  Now,  sir,  if 
there  be  any  thing  inconsistent  in  that,  I  admit  the  inconsistency 
— take  it  in  the  broadest  sense  and  I  agree  to  every  word  of  the 
resolution  of  Faneuil  Hall  of  1821.  In  the  present  state  of  things 
there  is  an  essential  importance — an  absolute  moral  necessity 
for  maintaining  those  habits,  pursuits,  business,  and  employ 
ments,  into  which  men  entered  twenty-two  years  ago,  upon  the 
faith  of  the  declared  sentiments  and  policy  of  a  majority  of  both 
Houses  of  Congress. 

OREGON    TERRITORY. 

August  11,  1848. — Mr.  DOUGLAS,  of  the  Committee  on  Ter 
ritories,  moved  to  amend  the  Oregon  territorial  bill,  by  extend 
ing  the  line  of  36°  30',  agreed  upon  in  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise,  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  and  thus  settle  the  slavery  question 
in  respect  to  territories.  The  vote  in  the  Senate  in  favor  of  this 
amendment  was  33,  against  it  21.  Those  in  the  negative  were : 
ALLEN  and  CORWIN  of  Ohio,  ATHERTON  and  HALE  of  New 
Hampshire,  BALDWIN  and  NILES  of  Connecticut,  BRADBURY  and 
HAMLIN  of  Maine,  BROWN  of  Illinois,  CLARKE  and  GREENE  of 
Hhode  Island,  DAVIS  and  WEBSTER  of  Massachusetts,  DAYTON 
and  AVELLS  of  New  Jersey,  Dix  of  New  York,  DODGE  of  Iowa, 
FETCH  of  Michigan,  PIIFLPS  and  UPHAM  of  Vermont,  WALKER 
of  Wisconsin. 

In  the  House,  this  amendment  was  rejected  by  a  vote  of  121 
against,  and  82  in  favor.  Northern  members  refused  to  carry 
out  the  Missouri  Compromise  in  its  application  to  territories 
lying  west  of  Missouri.  This  is  an  historical  fact  of  great  sig 
nificance  in  its  relation  to  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise. 

THE   WILMOT   PROVISO. 

To  a  bill,  proposed  by  Mr.  McKAY,  of  North  Carolina,  for 
making  peace  with  Mexico,  introduced  into  the  House  of  Rep-- 


KEMARKS. 

resentatives,  Angnst  8,  1846,  Mr.  DAVID  WILMOT,  of  Pennsyl 
vania,  proposed  the  following  amendment :  provided,  "That  as 
an  express  and  fundamental  condition  to  the  acquisition  of  any 
,  territory  from  the  Republic  of  Mexico  by  the  United  States,  by 
virtue  of  any  treaty  which  may  be  negotiated  between  them, 
and  to  the  use  by  the  Executive  of  the  moneys  herein  appro 
priated,  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  shall  ever 
exist  in  any  part  of  said  territory,  except  for  crime,  whereof 
the  party  shall  first  be  duly  convicted." 

Mr.  WICK  moved  to  amend  the  amendment  by  inserting 
therein,  after  the  word  "  territory,"  the  words,  "  north  of  36°  30' 
north  latitude." 

The  amendment  to  the  amendment  was  disagreed  to — ayes 
54,  noes  89. 

The  question  then  recurring  on  the  original  amendment  of 
Mr.  "WILMOT,  it  was  decided  in  the  affirmative — ayes  83,  noes  C-i. 

This  amendment,  with  some  modifications,  came  up  for  con 
sideration  in  the  House,  March  3,  1847.  It  was  rejected  by  a 
vote  of  97  in  favor,  and  102  against  the  proviso.  The  votes  of 
the  ISTew  England  States  were  in  favor  of  the  proviso  ;  the  votes 
of  the  Southern  States  were  opposed  to  the  proviso. 

REMARKS. 

1.  As  Northern  views  prevailed  in  Congress,  during  the  Ad 
ministration  of  General  HARRISON  and  Mr.  TYLER  ;  so  Southern 
views  prevailed  in  regard  to  political  principles  and  policy  dur 
ing  the  Administration  of  Mr.  POLK. 

2.  Mr.  VAN  BUREN  expected  the  nomination  to  the  Presi 
dency  from  the  Democratic  party  in  1844,  but  failed  of  receivr 
ing  it  on  account  of  his  declared  opposition  to  the  immediate 
annexation  of  Texas,  which  prevented  his  receiving '  the  votes 
of  Southern  delegates  in  the  Convention.     Mr.  CLAY,  for  the 
same  reason,  failed  of  his  election.     He  neither  satisfied  the 
South,  nor  all  the  free  soilers  of  the  K"orth,  by  his  letters  in  re 
spect  to  Texas. 

3.  The  adoption  of  the  "Wilmot  proviso  in  the  House  on  its 
first  introduction,  alarmed  and  wounded  the  South.     This  at 
tempt  to  exclude  Southern  men  and  Southern  institutions  from 


146  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

the  territories  which  were  won  by  the  common  blood  and  the 
common  treasure  of  the  States,  created  a  deep  sense  of  injury 
in  the  hearts  of  Southern  people.  On  the  other  hand,  the  legis 
latures  of  several  Northern  States  passed  resolves  approving  of 
the  proviso,  while  the  Northern  press  and  Northern  speech- 
makers  were  clamorous  in  its  favor,  and,  to  some  extent,  kindled 
up  a  fanatical  spirit  throughout  that  section.  In  opposition  to 
these  movements,  resolutions  were  introduced  by  Mr.  CALIIOUN 
into  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  declaring  that  the  terri 
tories  of  the  United  States  belong  to  the  several  States  as  joint 
property ;  that  Congress,  as  the  joint  agent  of  the  States,  has 
no  right  to  discriminate  between  the  States,  so  as  to  deprive 
any  of  them  of  its  full  and  equal  right  in  any  territory  of  the 
United  States ;  that  the  enactment  of  any  law  which  should 
deprive  the  citizens  of  any  of  the  States  from  emigrating  with 
their  property  into  any  of  the  territories  of  the  Union,  will  make 
such  discrimination,  and  would  be  a  violation  of  the  Constitu 
tion  and  the  rights  of  the  States  from  which  such  citizens  emi 
grated.  These  resolutions,  though  never  pressed  to  a  vote,  had 
their  influence  in  Congress  and  the  country. 

4.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Northern  States 
claimed  all  of  the  territories  for  themselves,  and  their  citizens, 
and  their  institutions. 

The  Southern  States  claimed  apart,  or  half  of  the  territories 
for  themselves,  and  their  citizens,  and  their  institutions. 

Which  of  the  two  sections  was  the  more  generous  and 
liberal  and  just? 

5.  The  following  is  one  of  a  series  of  resolutions  adopted  by 
the  Legislature  of  Virginia,  March  8,  1847,  and  re-affirmed  in 
1849  :  "  Resolved  unanimously r,  That  all  territory  which  may 
be  acquired  by  the  arms  of  the  United  States,  or  yielded  by 
treaty  with  any  foreign  power,  belongs  to  the  several  States  of 
this  Union,  as  their  joint  and  common  property,  in  which  each 
and  all  have  equal  rights ;  and  that  the  enactment,  by  the  Fed 
eral  Government,  of  any  law  which  should  directly,  or  by  its 
effects,  prevent  the  citizens  of  any  State  from  emigrating  with 
their  property,  of  whatever  description,  into   such  territory, 
would  make  a  discrimination  unwarranted  by,  and  in  violation 
of,  the  compromises  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  rights  of  the 


REMARKS.  147 

States  from  which  such  citizens  emigrated,  and  in  derogation 
of  that  perfect  equality  which  belongs  to  the  several  States  as 
members  of  this  Union,  and  would  directly  tend  to  subvert  the 
Union  itself."  This  had  a  direct  reference  to  the  Wilmot  pro 
viso,  but  it  had  also  a  wider  application. 

6.  Did  those  members  of  Congress  who  voted  against  ex 
tending  the  line  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  from  the  36°  30'  to 
the  Pacific  Ocean,  for  the  settlement  of  the  sectional  disputes 
in  regard  to  territories,  act  judiciously  and  fairly  ?  Could  they 
have  foreseen  the  evils  which  consequently  sprang  up  after 
wards,  would  they  not  have  given  a  different  vote,  and  thus 
have  avoided  those  evils  ? 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  Administration  of  Mr.  POLK,  the 
slave  State  members  held  nightly  meetings,  in  which  the  so- 
called  aggressions  of  Northern  States  wrere  dwelt  upon,  and 
measures  considered  for  the  defence  and  protection  of  the 
South.  Out  of  these  meetings  grew  an  address  to  the  people 
of  the  slave-holding  States,  signed  by  about  forty  members  of 
Congress.  In  that  address,  the  following  language  is  used : 
"  We  allude  to  the  conflict  between  the  two  great  sections  of 
the  Union,  growing  out  of  a  difference  of  feeling  and  opinion  in 
reference  to  the  relation  existing  between  the  two  races,  the 
European  and  the  African,  which  inhabit  the  Southern  section, 
and  the  acts  of  aggression  and  encroachment  to  which  it  has  led. 
The  conflict  commenced  not  long  after  the  acknowledgment  of 
our  independence,  and  has  gradually  increased  until  it  has  ar 
rayed  the  great  body  of  the  North  against  the  South  on  this 
most  vital  subject.  In  the  progress  of  this  conflict,  aggression 
has  followed  aggression,  and  encroachment  encroachment,  until 
they  have  reached  a  point  w^hen  a  regard  for  peace  and  safety 
will  not  permit  us  to  remain  longer  silent." 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

GENERAL    TAYLOR   AND   ME.    FILLMORfi's    ADMINISTRATION. 
MARCH  4,  1849— MARCH  4,  1853. 

GENERAL  ZACHARY  TAYLOR  was  elected  by  the  Whig  party, 
on  the  ground  of  availability,  and  not  on  the  ground  of  political 
experience  and  qualifications.  He  was  regarded  as  an  honest 
man,  and  as  "  rough  and  ready  "  in  war.  Many  of  the  Demo 
cratic  party  voted  for  him  on  the  ground  of  his  personal  and 
popular  qualities.  He  was  elected  on  the  platform  of  the  Con 
stitution,  the  subject  of  slavery  being  ignored  by  the  Convention 
which  nominated  him. 

Mr.  CASS  was  nominated  on.  a  platform  which  expressed  no 
opposition  to  slavery,  and  was  acceptable  to  the  slaveholding 
States  generally. 

Mr.  VAN  BUREN  was  nominated  at  Buffalo,  by  a  portion  of 
the  Democratic  party,  in  consequence  of  the  rejection  of  the  two 
sets  of  delegates  from  Xew  York,  by  the  Democratic  nominating 
Convention  at  Baltimore.  One  of  these  factions  in  that  State 
whose  delegates  had  been  rejected,  determined  to  assert  its  claim 
to  being  the  Democratic  party  of  New  York,  by  nominating  a 
candidate  of  its  own.  President  DWIGIIT  once  said  that  the  old 
"  Council  of  Appointment "  in  New  York  "  was  a  hornet's  nest 
in  the  kitchen."  That  Council  had  been  long  since  abolished, 
but  still,  as  late  as  1848,  difficulties  existed  connected  with  the 
appointing  power.  The  hornet's  nest  had  been  removed,  but 
the  hornets  remained.  In  the  platform  adopted  at  Buffalo,  it 
was  declared  to  be  the  duty  of  the  Federal  Government  to  abol 
ish  slavery  wherever  it  can  constitutionally  be  done ;  thus  point 
ing  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  It 


DANGER   OF   DISUNION. 

was  also  declared  in  that  platform  that  Congress  alone  can  pre 
vent  the  existence  of  slavery  in  the  Territories ;  thus  pointing 
to  exclusion  of  slavery  in  the  Territories.  The  party  assumed 
the  name  of  "  Free  soilers,"  or  "  Free-soil  party,"  and  rejoiced 
in  the  watchword,  "  Free  speech,"  "  Free  labor,"  "  Free  men." 
The  "  Liberty  party,"  or  "  Free-soil  party,"  of  New  York,  might 
have  elected  Mr.  CLAY  in  1844,  or  Mr.  CASS  in  1848,  by  throw 
ing  their  votes  with  the  Whig  party  at  the  one  election,  or  witli 
the  Democratic  party  in  the  other. 

General  TAYLOR  came  into  office  when  there  was  strong  sec 
ts 

tional  feeling  both  North  and  South,  excited  by  the  attempt  to 
pass  the  Wilmot  proviso,  and  by  many  other  aggressive  move 
ments  of  the  Northern  States.  These  States,  or  large  numbers 
in  these,  were  disposed  : 

1.  To  exclude  slaves  from  the  Territories,  and  in  this  way  to 
prevent  any  more  slave  States  from  coming  into  the  Union. 

2.  To  abolish  slave  representation  in  Congress,  by  an  amend 
ment  to  the  Constitution.     This  was  limited  to  a  few  States. 

3.  To  suppress  the  slave  trade  between  the  States,  and  in 
the  District  of  Columbia. 

4.  To  abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 

5.  To  prevent  the  capture  of  fugitive  slaves,  or  at  least  not 
to  aid  in  restoring  them  to  their  owners. 

6.  To  abolish  slavery  in  the  States  as  soon  as  can  constitu 
tionally  be  done,  by  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution. 

In  pressing  these  subjects  upon  the  attention  of  Congress,  a 
very  bitter  feeling  was  awakened  in  both  the  Northern  and 
Southern  States,  which  threatened  disunion  as  a  natural  conse 
quence. 

At  this  time  there  was  an  especial  interest  in  the  subject  of  ^ 
slavery  restriction  in  the  Territories,  not  only  on  account  of  the 
attempted  imposition  of  the  Wilmot  proviso,  but  also  on  ac 
count  of  the  projected  admission  of  California. 

DANGER    OF   DISUNION. 

So  deeply  impressed  was  Mr.  CLAY  writh  the  danger  of  dis 
union,  that  he  brought  forward  in  the  Senate,  January  29, 1850, 
his  celebrated  Compromise  Resolutions,  for  the  settlement  of 


150  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

the  sectional  difficulties.  In  his  own  language,  "  taken  together 
in  combination,  they  propose  an  amicable  arrangement  of  all 
questions  in  controversy  between  the  free  and  the  slave  States." 

Mr.  CALHOUN,  in  a  speech  prepared  by  him  with  great  care, 
but  owing  to  his  feeble  health  read  by  Mr.  MASON,  March  4, 
1850,  asserted  that  "  The  agitation  has  been  permitted  to  pro 
ceed,  with  almost  no  attempts  to  resist  it,  until  it  has  reached  a 
period  when  it  is  no  longer  to  be  disguised  or  denied,  that  the 
Union  is  in  danger."  "  What  is  it  that  has  endangered  the 
Union  ?  To  this  question  there  can  be  but  one  answer :  that 
the  immediate  cause  is  the  almost  universal  discontent  which 
pervades  all  the  States  composing  the  Southern  section  of  the 
Union.  This  widely-extended  discontent  is  not  of  recent  origin. 
It  commenced  with  the  agitation  of  the  slavery  question,  and 
has  been  increasing  ever  since."  lie  goes  on  to  ask,  "  What 
has  caused  this  widely-diffused  and  almost  universal  discon 
tent  ? "  He  then  proceeds  to  show  that  it  was  not  originated 
by  demagogues  ;  that  all  the  great  political  influences  were  ar 
rayed  against  excitement ;  that  the  Southern  Whigs  wished  to 
keep  the  peace  with  their  brother  Whigs  at  the  North  ;  that 
the  Southern  Democrats  wished  to  keep  the  peace  with  their 
brother  Democrats  at  the  North.  "  One  of  the  causes  is  found 
in  the  long-continued  agitation  of  the  slave  question  on  the  part 
of  the  North,  and  the  many  aggressions  made  on  the  rights  of 
the  South  during  that  time." 

"  There  is  another  cause  lying  back  of  it,  with  which  this  is 
so  intimately  connected  that  it  may  be  regarded  as  the  great 
and  primary  cause ;  that  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  the 
equilibrium  between  the  two  sections  of  the  Government,  as  it 
stood  when  the  Constitution  was  ratified,  and  the  Government 
put  in  action,  is  destroyed.  At  that  time  there  was  nearly  a 
perfect  equilibrium  between  the  two,  which  afforded  ample 
means  to  each  to  protect  itself  against  the  aggressions  of  the 
other ;  but  as  it  now  stands,  one  section  has  the  exclusive  power 
of  controlling  the  Government,  which  leaves  the  other  without 
any  adequate  means  of  protecting  itself  against  its  encroach 
ment  and  oppression."  The  change  arising  from  the  increase 
of  States  and  the  increase  of  population,  gives  to  the  North  a 
majority  in  the  House  of  50,  and  in  the  electoral  college  of  52. 


DANGER   OF   DISUNION.  151 

"  The  great  increase  of  Senators,  added  to  the  great  increase 
of  numbers  in  the  House  of  Representatives  and  in  the  elec 
toral  college,  on  the  part  of  the  North,  which  must  take  place 
under  the  next  decade,  will  effectually  and  irretrievably  destroy 
the  equilibrium  which  existed  when  the  Government  com 
menced. 

"  Had  this  destruction  been  the  operation  of  time,  without 
the  interference  of  Government,  the  South  would  have  had  no 
reason  to  complain  ;  but  such  was  not  the  fact.  It  was  caused 
by  the  legislation  of  this  Government,  which  was  appointed  as 
the  common  agent  of  all,  and  charged  with  the  protection  of  the 
interests  and  security  of  all*  ^  The  legislation  by  which  it  has 
been  effected  may  be  c^asml  under  three  heads :  The  first  is  that 
series  of  acts  by  whick'  the  South  had  been  excluded  from  the 
common  territory  belonging  to  all  of  the  States,  as  the  members 
of  the  Federal  Union,  and  which  soon  had  the  effect  of  extend 
ing  vastly  the  portion  allotted  to  the  Northern  section,  and  re 
stricting  within  narrow  limits  the  portion  left  to  the  South.  The 
next  consists  in  adopting  a  system  of  revenue  and  disbursements, 
by  which  an  undue  portion  of  the  burden  of  taxation  has  been 
imposed  on  the  South,  and  an  undue  proportion  of  the  proceeds 
appropriated  to  the  North.  And  the  last  is  a  system  of  political 
meHSures,  by  which  the  original  character  of  the  Government 
has  been  radically  changed. 

"  The  first  of  the  series  of  acts  by  which  the  South  was  de 
prived  of  its  due  share  of  the  Territories,  originated  with  the 
Confederacy,  which  preceded  the  existence  of  this  Government. 
It  is  to  be  found  in  the  ordinance  of  1787.  Its  effect  was  to  exr 
elude  the  South  entirely  from  that  vast  and  fertile  region  which 
lies  between  the  Ohio  and  the  Mississippi  Rivers,  now  em 
bracing  five  States  and  one  Territory.  The  next  of  the  series  is 
the  Missouri  Compromise,  which  excluded  the  South  from  that 
large  portion  of  Louisiana  which  lies  north  of  36°  30',  except 
what  is  included  in  the  State  of  Missouri.  The  last  in  the  series 
excluded  the  South  from  the  whole  Oregon  Territory.  All 
these,  in  the  slang  of  the  day,  were  what  is  called  slave  Territo 
ries,  and  not  free  soil ;  that  is,  Territories  belonging  to  slave- 
holding  powers,  and  open  to  the  emigration  of  masters  with 
their  slaves.  By  these  several  acts  the  South  was  excluded 


152  THE   SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

from  1,238,025  square  miles.  To  the  South  was  left  the  portion 
of  the  Territory  of  Louisiana  lying  south  of  36°  30',  and  the 
portion  north  of  it  included  in  the  State  of  Missouri ;  the  por 
tion  lying  south  of  36°  30',  including  the  States  of  Louisiana 
and  Arkansas ;  and  the  Territory  lying  west  of  the  latter  and 
south  of  36°  30',  called  the  Indian  country.  These,  with  the 
Territory  of  Florida,  now  the  State,  makes  in  the  whole  283,503 
square  miles.  To  this  must  be  added  the  territory  acquired 
with  Texas.  If  the  whole  should  be  added  to  the  Southern  sec 
tion,  it  would  make  an  increase  of  325,520,  which  would  make 
the  whole  left  to  the  South  609,023.  But  a  large  part  of  Texas 
is  still  in  contest  between  the  two  sections,  which  leaves  it  un 
certain  what  will  be  the  real  extent  of  the  portion  of  territory 
that  may  be  left  to  the  South. 

"  I  have  not  included  the  territory  recently  acquired  by  the 
treaty  with  Mexico.  The  I^orth  is  making  the  most  strenuous 
efforts  to  appropriate  the  wrhole  to  herself,  by  excluding  the 
South  from  every  foot  of  it.  If  she  should  succeed,  it  will  add 
to^  that  from  which  the  S9iith  has  already  been  excluded, 
526,078  square  miles,  and  would  increase  the  whole  which  the 
North  has  appropriated  to  herself  to  1,764,023,  not  including 
the  portion  that  she  may  succeed  in  excluding  us  from  in  Texas. 
To  sum  up  the  whole,  the  United  States,  since  they  declared 
their  independence,  have  acquired  2,373,046  square  miles  of 
territory,  from  which  the  North  will  have  excluded  the  South, 
if  she  should  succeed  in  monopolizing  the  newly  acquired  ter 
ritories,  from  about  three-fourths  of  the. whole,  leaving  to  the 
South  but  about  one-fourth. 

"  Such  is  the  first  and  great  cause  that  has  destroyed  the  equi 
librium  between  the  two  sections  in  the  Government. 

"  The  next  is  the  system  of  revenue  and  disbursements,  which 
has  been  adopted  by  the  Government.  It  is  well  known  that 
the  Government  has  derived  its  revenue  mainly  from  duties  on 
imports.  I  shall  not  undertake  to  show  that  such  duties  must 
necessarily  fall  mainly  on  the  exporting  States,  and  that  the 
South,  as  the  great  exporting  portion  of  the  Union,  has  in 
reality  paid  vastly  more  than  her  due  proportion  of  the  rev 
enue  ;  because  I  deem  it  unnecessary,  as  the  subject  has  on  so 
many  occasions  been  fully  discussed.  ISTor  shall  I,  for  the  same 


DANGER    OF   DISUNION.  153 

reason,  undertake  to  show  that  a  far  greater  portion  of  the  rev 
enue  has  been  disbursed  at  the  North  than  its  due  share,  and 
that  the  joint  effect  of  these  causes  has  been  to  transfer  a  vast 
amount  from  South  to  North,  which,  under  an  equal  system  of 
revenue  and  disbursements,  would  not  have  been  lost  to  her. 
If  to  this  be  added,  that  many  of  the  duties  were  imposed,  not 
for  revenue,  but  for  protection  ;  that  is,  intended  to  put  money, 
not  in  the  treasury,  but  directly  into  the  pockets  of  the  manufac 
turers,  some  conception  may  be  formed  of  the  immense  amount 
which,  in  the  long  course  of  sixty  years,  has  been  transferred 
from  South  to  North.  There  are  no  data  by  which  it  can  b6 
estimated  with  any  certainty  ;  but  it  is  safe  to  say  that  it 
amounts  to  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars.  Under  the  most 
moderate  estimate,  it  would  be  sufficient  to  add  greatly  to  the 
wealth  of  the  North,  and  thus  greatly  increase  her  population 
by  attracting  emigration  from  all  quarters  to  that  section. 

"  This,  combined  with  the  great  primary  cause,  amply  ex 
plains  why  the  North  has  acquired  a  preponderance  over  every 
department  of  the  Government  by  its  disproportionate  increase 
of  population  and  States.  The  former,  as  has  been  shown,  has 
increased  in  fifty  years  2,400,000  over  that  of  the  South.  This 
increase  of  population  during  so  long  a  period,  is  satisfactorily 
accounted  for  by  the  number  of  emigrants,  and  the  increase  of 
their  descendants,  which  have  been  attracted  to  the  Northern 
section  from  Europe  and  the  South,  in  consequence  of  the  ad 
vantages  derived  from  the  causes  assigned.  If  they  had  not 
existed  ;  if  the  South  had  retained  all  the  capital  which  has 
been  extracted  from  her  by  the  fiscal  action  of  the  Government ; 
and,  if  it  had  not  been  excluded  by  the  ordinance  of  '87  and  the 
Missouri  Compromise  from  the  region  lying  between  the  Ohio 
and  the  Mississippi  Rivers,  and  between  the  Mississippi  and 
the  Rocky  Mountains  north  of  36°  30',  it  scarcely  admits  of  a 
doubt  that  it  would  have  divided  the  emigration  with  the 
North,  and  by  retaining  her  own  people,  would  have  at  least 
equalled  the  North  in  population  under  the  census  of  1840,  and 
probably  under  that  about  to  be  taken.  She  would  also,  if  she 
had  retained  her  equal  rights  in  those  territories,  have  main 
tained  an  equality  in  the  number  of  States  with  the  North,  and 
have  preserved  the  equilibrium  between  the  two  sections  that 


154:  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

existed  at  the  commencement  of  the  Government.  The  loss, 
then,  of  the  equilibrium  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  action  of  this 
Government.  But  while  these  measures  were  destroying  the 
equilibrium  between  the  two  sections,  the  action  of  the  Govern 
ment  was  leading  to  a  radical  change  in  its  character,  by  con 
centrating  all  the  power  of  the  system  in  itself.  The  occasion 
will  not  permit  me  to  trace  the  measures  by  which  this  great 
change  has  been  consummated.  If  it  did,  it  would  not  be  diffi 
cult  to  show  that  the  process  commenced  at  an  early  period  of 
the  Government ;  that  it  proceeded  almost  without  interruption, 
step  by  step,  until  it  absorbed  virtually  its  entire  powers.  But 
without  going  through  the  whole  process  to  establish  the  fact, 
it  may  be  done  satisfactorily  by  a  very  short  statement.  .That 
the  Government  claims,  and  practically  maintains,  the  right  to 
decide,  in  the  last  resort,  as  to  the  extent  of  its  powers,  will 
scarcely  be  denied  by  any  one  conversant  with  the  political  his 
tory  of  the  country.  That  it  also  claims  the  right  to  resort  to 
force,  to  maintain  whatever  power  she  claims  against  all  oppo 
sition,  is  equally  certain.  Indeed  it  is  apparent,  from  what  we 
daily  hear,  that  this  has  become  the  prevailing  and  fixed  opinion 
of  a  great  majority  of  the  community.  Now,  I  ask,  what  limi 
tation  can  possibly  be  placed  upon  the  powers  of  a  Government 
claiming  and  exercising  such  rights  ?  And,  if  none  can  be,  how 
can  the  separate  Governments  of  the  States  maintain  and  pro 
tect  the  powers  reserved  to  them  by  the  Constitution,  or  the 
people  of  the  several  States  maintain  those  which  are  reserved 
to  them,  and  among  others,  the  sovereign  powers  by  which  they 
ordained  and  established,  not  only  their  separate  State  Consti 
tutions  and  Governments,  but  also  the  Constitution  and  Gov 
ernment  of  the  United  States  ?  But,  if  they  have  no  constitu 
tional  means  of  maintaining  them  against  the  right  claimed  by 
this  Government,  it  necessarily  follows  that  they  hold  them  at 
its  pleasure  and  discretion,  and  that  all  the  powers  of  the  system 
are  in  reality  concentrated  in  it.  It  also  follows  that  the  char 
acter  of  the  Government  has  been  changed,  in  consequence, 
from  a  Federal  Republic,  as  it  originally  came  from  the  hands 
of  its  framers,  and  that  it  lias  been  changed  into  a  great  national 
consolidated  Democracy.  It  has  indeed,  at  present,  all  the  char 
acteristics  of  the  latter,  and  not  one  of  the  former,  although  it 


DANGER   OF   DISUNION.  155 

still  retains  its  outward  form.  The  result  of  the  whole  of  these 
causes  combined  is,  that  the  North  has  acquired  a  decided  ascend 
ency  over  every  department  of  this  Government,  and  through 
it  a  control  over  all  the  powers  of  the  system.  A  single  section 
governed  by  the  will  of  the  numerical  majority  has  now,  in 
fact,  the  control  of  the  Government,  and  the  entire  powers  of 
the  system.  What  was  once  a  constitutional  Federal  Republic 
is  now  converted,  in  reality,  into  one  as  absolute  as  that  of  the 
autocrat  of  Russia,  and  as  despotic  in  its  tendency  as  any  ab 
solute  Government  that  ever  existed. 

"  As,  then,  the  North  has  the  absolute  control  over  the  Gov 
ernment,  it  is  manifest  that  on  all  questions  between  it  and  the 
South,  where  there  is  a  diversity  of  interests,  the  interests  of 
the  latter  will  be  sacrificed  to  the  former,  however  oppressive 
the  effects  may  be,  as  the  South  possesses  no  means  by  which  it 
can  resist  through  the  action  of  the  Government.  But  if  there 
was  no  question  of  vital  importance  to  the  South,  in  reference 
to  which  there  was  a  diversity  of  views  between  the  two  sec 
tions,  this  state  of  things  might  be  endured  without  the  hazard 
of  destruction  to  the  South.  But  such  is  not  the  fact.  There 
is  a  question  of  vital  importance  to  the  Southern  section,  in 
reference  to  which  the  views  and  feelings  of  the  two  sections 
are  as  opposite  and  hostile  as  they  can  possibly  be.  I  refer  to 
the  relation  between  the  two  races  in  the  Southern  section, 
which  constitutes  a  vital  portion  of  her  social  organization. 
Every  portion  of  the  North  entertains  views  and  feelings  more 
or  less  hostile  to  it.  Those  most  opposed  and  hostile  regard  it 
as  a  sin,  and  consider  themselves  under  the  most  sacred  obliga 
tion  to  use  every  effort  to  destroy  it.  Indeed,  to  the  extent 
that  they  conceive  they  have  the  power,  they  regard  themselves 
as  implicated  in  the  sin,  and  responsible  for  suppressing  it  by 
the  use  of  all  and  every  means.  Those  less  opposed  and  hostile, 
regard  it  as  a  crime — an  offence  against  humanity,  as  they  call 
it ;  and  although  not  so  fanatical,  feel  themselves  bound  to  use 
all  efforts  to  effect  the  same  object ;  while  those  who  are  least 
opposed  and  hostile,  regard  it  as  a  blot  and  a  stain  on  the  char 
acter  of  what  they  call  the  nation,  and  feel  themselves  accord 
ingly  bound  to  give  it  no  countenance  or  support.  On  the 
contrary,  the  Southern  section  regards  the  relation  as  one  which 


156  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

cannot  be  destroyed  without  subjecting  the  two  races  to  the 
greatest  calamity,  and  the  section  to  poverty,  desolation,  and 
wretchedness ;  and  accordingly  they  feel  bound  by  every  con 
sideration  of  interest  and  safety  to  defend  it. 

"This  hostile  feeling  on  the  part  of  the  North  towards  the 
social  organization  of  the  South  long  lay  dormant,  but  it  only 
required  some  cause  to  act  on  those  who  felt  most  intensely 
that  they  were  responsible  for  its  continuance  to  call  it  into 
action.  The  increasing  power  of  this  Government,  and  of  the 
control  of  the  Northern  section  over  all  its  departments,  fur 
nished  the  cause.  It  was  this  which  made  an  impression  on  the 
minds  of  many,  that  there  was  little  or  no  restraint  to  prevent 
the  Government  from  doing  whatever  it  might  choose  to  do. 
This  was  sufficient  of  itself  to  put  the  most  fanatical  portion  of 
the  North  in  action  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  the  existing 
relation  between  the  two  races  in  the  South. 

"  The  first  organized  movement  towards  it  commenced  in 
1835.  Then,  for  the  first  time,  societies  were  organized,  presses 
established,  lecturers  sent  forth  to  excite  the  people  of  the 
North,  and  incendiary  publications  scattered  over  the  whole 
South  through  the  mail.  The  South  was  thoroughly  aroused. 
Meetings  were  held  everywhere,  and  resolutions  adopted,  calling 
upon  the  North  to  apply  a  remedy  to  arrest  the  threatened  evil, 
and  pledging  themselves  to  adopt  measures  for  their  own  pro 
tection,  if  it  was  not  arrested.  At  the  meeting  of  Congress, 
petitions  poured  in  from  the  North,  calling  upon  Congress  to 
abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  to  prohibit 
what  they  called  the  internal  slave  trade  between  the  States, 
announcing  at  the  same  time  that  their  ultimate  object  was  to 
abolish  slavery,  not  only  in  the  District,  but  in  the  States  and 
throughout  the  Union.  At  this  period  the  number  engaged  in 
the  agitation  was  small,  and  possessed  little  or  no  personal  in 
fluence. 

"  Neither  party  in  Congress  had,  at  that  time,  any  sympathy 
with  them  or  their  cause.  The  members  of  each  party  pre 
sented  their  petitions  with  great  reluctance.  Nevertheless,  as 
small  and  contemptible  as  the  party  then  was,  both  of  the  great 
parties  at  the  North  dreaded  them.  They  felt  that,  though 
small,  they  were  organized  in  reference  to  a  subject  which  had 


DANGER   OF   DISUNION.  157 

a  great  and  commanding  influence  over  the  Northern  mind. 
Each  party  on  that  account  feared  to  oppose  their  petitions, 
lest  the  opposite  party  should  take  advantage  of  the  one  who 
might  do  so  by  favoring  their  petitions.  The  effect  was,  that 
both  united  in  insisting  that  the  petitions  should  be  received, 
and  that  Congress  should  take  jurisdiction  of  the  subject  for 
which  they  prayed.  To  justify  their  course,  they  took  the  ex 
traordinary  ground  that  Congress  was  bound  to  receive  petitions 
on  every  subject,  however  objectionable  it  might  be,  and  whether 
they  had  or  had  not  jurisdiction  over  the  subject.  These  views 
prevailed  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  partially  in  the 
Senate,  and  thus  the  party  succeeded  in  their  first  movements 
in  gaining  what  they  proposed — a  position  in  Congress  from 
which  agitation  could  be  extended  over  the  whole  Union.  This 
was  the  commencement  of  the  agitation,  which  has  ever  since 
continued,  and  which,  as  is  now  acknowledged,  has  endangered 
the  Union  itself.  As  for  myself,  1  believed,  at  that  early  period, 
if  the  party  who  got  up  the  petitions  should  succeed  in  getting 
Congress  to  take  jurisdiction,  that  agitation  would  follow,  and 
that  it  would,  in  the  end,  if  not  arrested,  destroy  the  Union.  I 
then  so  expressed  myself  in  debate,  and  called  upon  both  par 
ties  to  take  grounds  against  assuming  jurisdiction,  but  in  vain. 
Had  my  voice  been  heeded,  and  had  Congress  refused  to  take 
jurisdiction,  by  the  united  votes  of  all  parties,  the  agitation 
which  followed  would  have  been  prevented,  and  the  fanatical 
zeal  that  gives  impulse  to  the  agitation,  and  which  has  brought 
us  to  our  present  perilous  condition,  would  have  become  ex 
tinguished  from  the  want  of  something  to  feed  the  flame*.  -  That 
was  the  time  for  the  North  to  show  her  devotion  to  the  Union  ; 
but  unfortunately  both  of  the  great  parties  of  that  section  were 
so  intent  on  obtaining  or  retaining  party  ascendency,  that  all 
other  considerations  were  overlooked  or  forgotten. 

"  What  has  since  followed  are  but  the  natural  consequences. 
With  the  success  of  their  first  movement,  this  small  fanatical 
party  began  to  acquire  strength  ;  and  with  that  to  become  an 
object  of  courtship  to  both  the  great  parties.  The  necessary 
consequence  was  a  further  increase  of  power,  and  a  gradual 
tainting  of  the  opinions  of  both  of  the  other  parties  with  their 
doctrines,  until  the  infection  has  extended  over  both  ;  and  the 


158  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

great  masses  of  the  population  of  the  North  who,  whatever  may 
be  their  opinion  of  the  original  abolition  party,  which  still  pre 
serves  its  distinctive  organization,  hardly  ever  fail,  when  it 
comes  to  acting,  to  co-operate  in  carrying  out  their  measures. 
"With  the  increase  of  their  influence,  they  extended  the  sphere 
of  their  action.  In  a  short  time  after  the  commencement  of 
their  first  movement,  they  had  acquired  sufficient  influence  to 
induce  the  Legislatures  of  most  of  the  Northern  States  to  pass 
acts  which,  in  effect,  abrogated  the  provision  of  the  Constitu 
tion  that  provides  for  the  delivering  up  of  fugitive  slaves.  Not 
long  after,  petitions  followed  to  abolish  slavery  in  forts,  maga 
zines,  and  dock-yards,  and  all  other  places  where  Congress  had 
exclusive  power  of  legislation.  This  was  followed  by  petitions 
and  resolutions  of  Legislatures  of  the  Northern  States  and' pop 
ular  meetings,  to  exclude  the  Southern  States  from  all  terri 
tories  acquired  or  to  be  acquired,  and  to  prevent  the  admission 
of  any  State  hereafter  into  the  Union,  which  by  its  Constitution 
does  not  prohibit  slavery.  And  Congress  is  invoked  to  do  all 
this  expressly  with  the  view  to  the  final  abolition  of  slavery  in 
the  States.  That  has  been  avowed  to  be  the  ultimate  object 
from  the  beginning  of  agitation  until  the  present  time  ;  and  yet 
the  great  body  of  both  parties  of  the  North,  with  the  full  knowl 
edge  of  the  fact,  although  disavowing  the  abolitionists,  have  co 
operated  with  them  in  almost  all  their  measures. 

"  Such  is  a  brief  history  of  the  agitation,  as  far  as  it  has  yet 
advanced.  Now,  I  ask  Senators,  what  is  there  to  prevent  its 
further  progress,  until  it  fulfils  the  ultimate  end  proposed,  un 
less  some  decisive  measure  should  be  adopted  to  prevent  it  ? 
Has  any  one  of  the  causes,  which  have  added  to  its  increase  from 
its  original  small  and  contemptible  beginning  until  it  has  at 
tained  its  present  magnitude,  diminished  in  force  ?  Is  the 
original  cause  of  the  movement,  that  slavery  is  a  sin,  and  ought 
to  be  suppressed,  weaker  now  than  at  the  commencement  ?  Or 
are  the  Abolition  party  less  numerous  or  influential,  or  have  they 
less  influence  over,  or  control  over  the  two  great  parties  of  the 
North  in  elections  ?  Or  has  the  South  greater  means  of  influ 
encing  or  controlling  the  movements  of  this  Government  now, 
than  it  had  when  the  agitation  commenced  ?  To  all  these  ques 
tions  but  one  answer  can  be  given  :  No,  no,  no  !  The  very  re- 


DANGER    OF   DISUNION.  159 

verse  is  true.  Instead  of  being  weaker,  all  the  elements  in  favor 
of  agitation  are  stronger  now  than  they  were  in  1835,  when  it 
first  commenced,  while  all  the  elements  of  influence  on  the  part 
of  the  South  are  weaker.  Unless  something  decisive  is  done,  I 
again  ask  what  is  to  stop  this  agitation,  before  the  great  and 
final  object  at  which  it  aims — the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the 
States — is  consummated  ?  Is  it,  then,  not  certain,  that  if  some 
thing  decisive  is  not  now  done  to  arrest  it,  the  South  will  be 
forced  to  choose  between  abolition  and  secession  ?  Indeed,  as 
events  are  now  moving,  it  will  not  require  the  South  to  secede 
to  dissolve  the  Union.  Agitation  will  of  itself  effect  it,  of  which 
its  past  history  furnishes  abundant  proof,  as  I  shall  next  pro 
ceed  to  show. 

"  It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  disunion  can  be  effected 
by  a  single  blow.  The  cords  which  bind  these  States  together 
in  one  common  Union  are  far  too  numerous  and  powerful  for 
that.  Disunion  must  be  the  work  of  time.  It  is  only  through 
a  long  process,  and  successively,  that  the  cords  can  be  snapped, 
until  the  whole  fabric  falls  asunder.  Already  the  agitation  of 
the  slavery  question  has  snapped  some  of  the  most  important, 
and  has  greatly  weakened  all  the  others,  as  I  shall  proceed  to 
show. 

"  The  cords  that  bind  the  States  together  are  not  only  many 
but  various  in  character.  Some  are  spiritual  or  ecclesiastical ; 
some  political ;  others  social.  Some  appertain  to  the  benefit 
conferred  by  the  Union,  and  others  to  the  feeling  of  duty  and 
obligation. 

"  The  strongest  of  those  of  a  spiritual  and  ecclesiastical  nature 
consisted  in  the  unity  of  the  great  religious  denominations,  all 
of  which  originally  embraced  the  whole  Union.  All  these  de 
nominations,  with  the  exception,  perhaps,  of  the  Catholics,  were 
organized  very  much  upon  the  principle  of  our  political  institu 
tions  ;  beginning  with  smaller  meetings  corresponding  with  the 
political  divisions  of  the  county,  their  organizations  terminated 
in  one  great  central  assemblage,  corresponding  very  much  with 
the  character  of  Congress.  At  these  meetings,  the  principal 
clergymen  and  lay  members  of  the  respective  denominations 
from  all  parts  of  the  Union  met  to  transact  business  relating  to 
their  common  concerns.  It  was  not  confined  to  what  apper- 


160  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

tained  to  the  doctrines  and  discipline  of  the  respective  denom 
inations,  but  extended  to  plans  for  disseminating  the  Bible, 
establishing  missionaries,  distributing  tracts,  and  of  establishing 
presses  for  the  publication  of  tracts,  newspapers,  and  periodicals, 
with  a  view  of  diffusing  religious  information,  and  for  the  sup 
port  of  the  doctrines  and  creeds  of  the  denomination.  All  this 
combined,  contributed  greatly  to  strengthen  the  bonds  of  the 
Union.  The  strong  ties  which  held  each  denomination  together 
formed  a  strong  cord  to  hold  the  whole  Union  together ;  but, 
as  powerful  as  they  were,  they  have  not  been  able  to  resist  the 
explosive  effect  of  slavery  agitation. 

"  The  first  of  these  cords  which  snapped,  under  its  explosive 
force,  was  that  of  the  powerful  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
The  numerous  and  strong  ties  which  held  it  together  are  all 
broke,  and  its  unity  gone.  They  now  form  separate  churches, 
and,  instead  of  that  feeling  of  attachment  and  devotion  to  the 

'  O 

interests  of  the  whole  Church  which  was  formerly  felt,  they  are 
now  arrayed  into  two  hostile  bodies,  engaged  in  litigation  about 
what  was  formerly  their  common  property. 

"  The  next  cord  that  snapped  was  that  of  the  Baptists,  one  of 
the  largest  and  most  respectable  of  the  denominations.  That 
of  the  Presbyterian  is  not  entirely  snapped,  but  some  of  its 
strands  have  given  way.  That  of  the  Episcopal  Church  is  the 
only  one  of  the  four  great  Protestant  denominations  which  re 
mains  unbroken  and  entire. 

"  The  strongest  cord  of  a  political  character  consists  of  the 
many  and  strong  ties  that  have  held  together  the  two  great 
parties,  which  have,  with  some  modifications,  existed  from  the 
beginning  of  the  Government.  They  both  extended  to  every 
portion  of  the  Union,  and  strongly  contributed  to  hold  all  its 
parts  together.  But  this  powerful  cord  has  fared  no  better  than 
the  spiritual.  It  resisted  for  a  long  time  the  explosive  tendency 
of  the  agitation,  but  has  finally  snapped  under  its  force — if  not 
entirely/  in  a  great  measure.  Nor  is  there  one  of  the  remaining 
cords  which  has  not  been  greatly  weakened.  To  this  extent  the 
Union  has  already  been  destroyed  by  agitation,  in  the  only  way 
it  can  be,  by  snapping  asunder  and  weakening  the  cords  which 
bind  it  together. 

If  the  agitation  goes  on,  the  same  force,  acting  with  increased 


DANGER   OF   DISUNION.  161 

intensity,  as  lias  been  shown,  will  finally  snap  every  cord,  when 
nothing  will  be  left  to  hold  the  States  together  except  force. 
But  surely  that  can,  with  no  propriety  of  language,  be  called  a 
union,  when  the  only  means  by  which  the  weaker  is  held  con 
nected  with  the  stronger  portion  is  force.  It  may,  indeed,  keep 
them  connected ;  but  the  connection  will  partake  much  more 
of  the  character  of  subjugation,  on  the  part  of  the  weaker  to 
the  stronger,  than  the  union  of  free,  independent,  and  sovereign 
States,  in  one  confederation,  as  they  stood  in  the  early  stages  of 
the  Government,  and  which  only  is  worthy  of  the  sacred  name 
of  union. 

"  Having  now,  Senators,  explained  what  it  is  that  endangers 
the  Union,  and  traced  it  to  its  cause,  and  explained  its  nature 
and  character,  the  question  again  recurs,  How  can  the  Union  be 
saved  ?  To  this  I  answer,  there  is  but  one  way  by  which  it  can 
be,  and  that  is,  by  adopting  such  measures  as  will  satisfy  the 
States  belonging  to  the  Southern  section  that  they  can  remain 
in  the  Union  consistently  with  their  honor  and  their  safety. 
There  is,  again,  only  one  way  by  which  that  can  be  effected, 
and  that  is,  by  removing  the  causes  by  which  this  belief  has 
been  produced.  Do  that,  and  discontent  will  cease,  harmony 
and  kind  feelings  between  the  sections  be  restored,  and  every 
apprehension  of  danger  to  the  Union  removed.  The  question 
then  is,  By  what  can  this  be  done  ?  But,  before  I  undertake 
to  answer  this  question,  I  propose  to  show  by  what  the  Union 
cannot  be  saved. 

"  It  cannot,  then,  be  saved  by  eulogies  on  the  Union,  however 
splendid  or  numerous.  The  cry  of. c  Union,  Union,  the  glorious 
Union !  '  can  no  more  prevent  disunion  than  the  cry  of 
'  Health,  Health,  glorious  Health  !  J  on  the  part  of  the  phy 
sician,  can  save  a  patient  lying  dangerously  ill.  So  long  as  the 
Union,  instead  of  being  regarded  as  a  protector,  is  regarded  in 
the  opposite  character,  by  not  much  less  than  a  majority  of  the 
States,  it  will  be  in  vain  to  attempt  to  conciliate  them  by  pro 
nouncing  eulogies  on  it. 

"  Besides,  this  cry  of  Union  comes  commonly  from  those 
whom  we  cannot  believe  to  be  sincere ;  it  usually  comes  from 
our  assailants.  But  we  cannot  believe  them  to  be  sincere  ;  for, 
if  they  loved  the  Union,  they  would  necessarily  be  devoted  to 


1G2  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTEOVEESY. 

the  Constitution.  It  made  the  Union,  and  to  destroy  the  Con 
stitution  would  be  to  destroy  the  Union.  But  the  only  reliable 
and  certain  evidence  of  devotion  to  the  Constitution  is  to  ab 
stain,  on  the  one  hand,  from  violating  it,  and  to  repel,  on  the 
other,  .ail  attempts  to  violate  it.  It  is  only  by  faithfully  per 
forming  these  high  duties  that  the  Constitution  can  be  pre 
served,  and  with  it  the  Union. 

"  But  how  stands  the  profession  of  devotion  to  the  Union  by 
our  assailants,  when  brought  to  this  test  ?  Have  they  abstained 
from  violating  the  Constitution  ?  Let  the  many  acts  passed  by 
the  Northern  States,  to  set  aside  and  annul  the  clause  of  the 
Constitution  providing  for  the  delivery  up  of  fugitive  slaves, 
answer.  I  cite  this,  not  that  it  is  the  only  instance,  (for  there 
are  many  others,)  but  because  the  violation  in  this  particular  is 
too  notorious  and  palpable  to  be  denied.  Again,  have  they 
stood  forth  faithfully  to  repel  violations  of  the  Constitution  ? 
Let  their  course  in  reference  to  the  agitation  of  the  slavery  ques 
tion,  which  was  commenced  and  has  been  carried  on  for  fifteen 
years,  avowedly  for  the  purpose  of  abolishing  slavery  in  the 
States — an  object  all  acknowledged  to  be  unconstitutional — 
answer.  Let  them  show  a  single  instance,  during  this  long 
period,  in  which  they  have  denounced  the  agitators  or  their 
attempts  to  effect  what  is  admitted  to  be  unconstitutional,  or  a 
single  measure  which  they  have  brought  forward  for  that  pur 
pose.  How  can  we,  with  all  these  facts  before  us,  believe  that 
they  are  sincere  in  their  profession  of  devotion  to  the  Union,  or 
avoid  believing  their  profession  is  but  intended  to  increase  the 
vigor  of  their  assaults,  and  to  weaken  the  force  of  our  re 
sistance  ? 

"  'Nor  can  we  regard  the  profession  of  devotion  to  the  Union, 
on  the  part  of  those  who  are  not  our  assailants,  as  sincere,  when 
they  pronounce  eulogies  upon  the  Union,  evidently  with  the 
intent  of  charging  us  with  disunion,  without  uttering  one  word 
of  denunciation  against  our  assailants.  If  friends  of  the  Union, 
their  course  should  be  to  unite  with  us  in  repelling  these  as 
saults,  and  denouncing  the  authors  as  enemies  of  the  Union. 
Why  they  avoid  this,  and  pursue  the  course  they  do,  it  is  for 
them  to  explain. 

"  K  or  can  the  Union  be  saved  by  invoking  the  name  of  the 


DANGKR    OF   DISUNION.  1C3 

illustrious  Southerner,  whose  mortal  remains  repose  on  the 
western  bank  of  the  Potomac.  He  was  one  of  us — a  slave 
holder  and  a  planter.  We  have  studied  his  history,  and  find 
nothing  in  it  to  j  ustify  submission  to  wrong.  On  the  contrary, 
his  great  fame  rests  on  the  solid  foundation  that,  while  he  was 
careful  to  avoid  doing  wrong  to  others,  he  was  prompt  and  de 
cided  in  repelling  wrong.  I  trust  that,  in  this  respect,  we  pro 
fited  by  his  example. 

"K"or  can  we  find  any  thing  in  his  history  to  deter  us  from 
seceding  from  the  Union,  should  it  fail  to  fulfil  the  objects  for 
which  it  was  instituted,  by  being  permanently  and  hopelessly 
converted  into  the  means  of  oppressing  instead  of  protecting  us. 
On  the  contrary,  we  find  much  in  his  example  to  encourage  us, 
should  we  be  forced  to  the  extremity  of  deciding  between  sub 
mission  and  disunion. 

"  There  existed  then,  as  well  as  now,  a  Union — that  between 
a  parent  country  and  her  then  colonies.  It  was  a  Union  that 
had  much  to  endear  it  to  the  people  of  the  colonies.  Under  its 
protecting  and  superintending  care,  the  colonies  were  planted, 
and  grew  up,  and  prospered,  through  a  long  course  of  years, 
until  they  became  populous  and  wealthy.  Its  benefits  were  not 
limited  to  them.  Their  extensive  agricultural  and  other  pro 
ductions  gave  birth  to  a  flourishing  commerce,  which  richly  re 
warded  the  parent  country  for  the  trouble  and  expense  of  estab 
lishing  and  protecting  them.  Washington  was  born  and  grew 
up  to  manhood  under  that  Union.  lie  acquired  his  early  dis 
tinction  in  its  service,  and  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that 
he  was  devotedly  attached  to  it.  But  his  devotion  was  a  rational 
one.  He  was  attached  to  it,  not  as  an  end,  but  as  a  means  to 
an  end.  When  it  failed  to  fulfil  its  end,  and,  instead  of  afford 
ing  protection,  was  converted  into  the  means  of  oppressing  the 
colonies,  he  did  not  hesitate  to  draw  his  sword,  and  head  the 
great  movement  by  which  that  Union  was  forever  severed, 
and  the  independence  of  these  States  established.  This  was  the 
great  and  crowning  glory  of  his  life,  which  has  spread  his  fame 
over  the  whole  globe,  and  will  transmit  it  to  the  latest  posterity." 

Mr.  CALHOUN  then  went  on  to  say,  that  neither  the  plan  pro 
posed  by  the  distinguished  Senator  from  Kentucky,  (Mr.  CLAY,) 
nor  that  of  the  Administration,  can  save  the  Union. 


164  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

u  Having  now  shown  what  cannot  save  the  Union,  I  return 
to  the  question  with  which  I  commenced,  How  can  the  Union 
be  saved  ?  There  is  but  one  way  with  which  it  can  with  any 
certainty,  and  that  is  by  a  full  and  final  settlement,  on  the  prin 
ciples  of  justice,  of  all  questions  at  issue  between  the  two  sec 
tions.  The  South  asks  for  justice,  simple  justice,  and  less  she 
ought  not  to  take.  She  has  no  compromise  to  offer  but  the 
Constitution,  and  no  concession  or  surrender  to  make.  She  has 
already  surrendered  so  much  that  she  has  little  left  to  surrender. 
Such  a  settlement  would  go  to  the  root  of  the  evil,  and  remove 
all  cause  of  discontent,  by  satisfying  the  South  that  she  could 
remain  honorably  and  safely  in  the  Union,  and  thereby  restore 
the  harmony  and  fraternal  feelings  between  the  sections  which 
existed  anterior  to  the  Missouri  agitation.  Nothing  else,  can, 
with  any  certainty,  finally  and  forever  settle  the  questions  at 
issue,  terminate  agitation,  and  save  the  Union.  But  can  this 
be  done  ?  Yes,  easily  ;  not  by  the  weaker  party,  for  it  can  of 
itself  do  nothing — not  even  protect  itself — but  by  the  stronger. 
The  North  has  only  to  will  it  to  accomplish  it ;  to  do  justice  l>y 
conceding  to  the  South  an  equal  right  in  the  acquired  territory, 
and  to  do  her  duty  l)y  causing  the  stipulation  in  regard  to  fugi 
tive  slaves  to  ~be  faithfully  fulfilled  ;  to  cease  the  agitation  of  the 
slave  question,  and  to  provide  for  the  insertion  in  the  Constitu 
tion  of  an  amendment,  which  will  restore  to  the  South,  in  sub 
stance,  the  power  she  possessed  of  protecting  herself  before  the 
equilibrium  between  the  sections  was  destroyed  by  the  action 
of  the  Government." 


MR.    WEBSTER   ON   THE   COMPROMISE,    MARCH    7,    1850. 

"  MR.  PRESIDENT  :  I  wish  to  speak  to-day,  not  as  a  Massa 
chusetts  man,  nor  as  a  Northern  man,  but  as  an  American,  and 
a  member  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  It  is  fortunate 
that  there  is  a  Senate  of  the  United  States — a  body  not  yet 
moved  from  its  propriety,  not  lost  to  a  just  sense  of  its  own  dig 
nity,  and  its  own  high  responsibilities,  and  a  body  to  which  the 
country  looks  with  confidence  for  wise,  moderate,  patriotic,  and 
healing  counsels.  It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  we  live  in  the 
midst  of  strong  agitations,  and  surrounded  by  very  considerable 


MR.    WEBSTER   ON    THE   COMPROMISE,  MARCH  7,  1850.  1G5 

dangers  to  our  institutions  of  government.  The  imprisoned 
winds  are  let  loose.  The  East,  the  West,  the  North,  and  the 
stormy  South,  all  combine  to  throw  the  whole  ocean  into  com 
motion,  to  top  its  billows  to  the  skies,  and  to  disclose  its  pro- 
foundest  depth.  I  do  not  expect  to  hold  or  to  be  fit  to  hold  the 
helm  in  this  combat  of  the  political  elements ;  but  I  have  a 
duty  to  perform,  and  I  mean  to  perform  it  with  fidelity — not 
without  a  sense  of  the  surrounding  dangers,  but  not  without 
hope.  I  have  a  part  to  act,  not  for  my  own  security  or  safety, 
for  I  am  looking  out  for  no  fragment  upon  which  to  float  away 
from  the  wreck,  if  wreck  there  must  be,  but  for  the  good  of  the 
whole  and  the  preservation  of  the  whole ;  and  there  is  that 
which  will  press  me  to  my  duty  during  this  struggle,  whether 
the  sun  and  the  stars  shall  appear,  or  shall  not  appear,  after 
many  days.  I  speak  to-day  for  the  preservation  of  the  Union. 
4  Hear  me  for  my  cause.'  I  speak  to-day  out  of  a  solicitous  and 
anxious  heart,  for  the  restoration  to  the  country  of  that  quiet 
and  that  harmony  which  make  the  blessings  of  the  Union  so 
rich  and  so  dear  to  us  all." 

Mr.  WEBSTER  then  proceeded  to  give  a  history  of  some  of 
the  difficulties  in  respect  to  slavery  ;  spoke  of  the  conquest  of 
California  ;  of  the  gold  mines  there  ;  of  the  Constitution  offered 
to  Congress  as  the  ground  of  admission  into  the  Union,  which 
Constitution  contains  the  prohibition  of  slavery,  which  was  not 
satisfactory  to  the  South ;  of  the  existence  of  slavery  in  other 
portions  and  ages  of  the  world,  and  of  the  difference  of  opinion 
felt  respecting  the  institution,  by  the  North  and  the  South  ;  of 
the  unhappy  di\7ision  in  the  Methodist  church,  growing  out  of 
the  difference  of  opinion  on  this  subject.  He  also  spoke  of  the 
existence  of  slavery  in  this  country  ;  of  the  views  entertained  of 
it  at  the  time  the  Constitution  was  formed,  by  both  North  and 
South  ;  and  of  the  subsequent  change  of  views  in  both  sections  ; 
of  the  influence  of  cotton  cultivation ;  of  the  annexation  of 
Texas  ;  of  his  opinion  on  the  admission  of  slavery  in  the  Terri 
tories  ;  of  the  "Wilmot  proviso  ;  of  his  opposition  to  the  admis 
sion  of  new  territory  ;  of  the  exclusion  of  slavery  by  climate 
and  the  laws  of  nature  ;  of  the  grievances  of  the  North  and  of 
the  South  ;  of  the  complaint  of  the  South,  "  that  there  has  been 
found  at  the  North  among  individuals  and  among  the  Legisla- 


16(3  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

tures  at  the  Xorth  a  disinclination  to  perform  fully  their  consti 
tutional  duties  in  regard  to  the  return  of  persons  bound  to  ser 
vice,  who  have  escaped  into  the  free  States.  In  that  respect  it 
is  my  judgment  that  the  South  is  right,  and  the  Xorth  is  wrong." 
He  also  spoke  of  resolutions  emanating  from  Legislatures  at  the 
Xorth,  and  sent  here  to  us,  not  only  on  the  subject  of  slavery  in 
this  District,  but  sometimes  recommending  Congress  to  consider 
the  means  of  abolishing  slavery  in  the  States.  He  said  that 
"  it  has  become,  hi  my  opinion,  quite  too  common  a  practice  for 
the  State  Legislatures  to  present  resolutions  on  all  subjects,  and 
to  instruct  us  here  on  all  subjects."  He  said,  in  regard  to  abo 
lition  societies,  that  "  he  does  not  think  them  useful.*'  He 
spoke  of  the  violent  language  used  in  Congress  with  disappro 
bation  ;  of  slave  representation ;  of  the  imprisonment  of  free 
blacks  who  go  South  in  Northern  vessels  ;  of  Mr.  HOAR'S  mis 
sion  ;  of  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  secession  ;  of  the  gift  of 
Virginia  to  the  United  States  in  the  cession  of  territory  ;  of  his 
hopes  that  the  Union  may  continue. 

This  speech,  one  of  the  ablest  ever  made  by  Mr.  WEBSTER, 
was  intended  by  him  to  be  catholic  and  liberal,  and  by  catho 
lic  and  liberal  men  in  every  part  of  the  country  it  was  well  re 
ceived,  but  not  by  the  abolitionists.  He  had  voted  not  to  place 
in  the  Territorial  bills  the  Wilmot  proviso,  and  hence  he  in 
curred  the  censure  of  the  abolition  wing  of  the  Whig  party.  In 
allusion  to  this  in  a  subsequent  speech,  delivered  June  17,  he 
said  :  "  When  I  see  gentlemen  from  my  own  part  of  the  country, 
no  doubt  from  motives  of  the  highest  character,  and  for  most 
conscientious  purposes,  not  concurring  in  any  of  these  great 
questions  with  myself,  I  am  aware  that  I  am  taking  on  myself 
an  uncommon  degree  of  responsibility."  He  adds :  "  It  is  a 
great  emergency,  a  great  exigency,  that  this  country  is  placed 
in."  In  relation  to  this  censure,  he  remarks  :  u  Xow,  sir,  I  do 
not  take  the  trouble  to  answer  things  of  this  sort  that  appear  in 
the  public  press  ;  I  know  it  would  be  useless." 

He  closed  his  speech  as  follows  :  "  Sir,  my  object  is  peace. 
My  object  is  reconciliation.  My  purpose  is  not  to  make  up  a 
case  for  the  Xorth,  or  to  make  up  a  case  for  the  South.  My 
object! is  not  to  continue  useless  and  irritating  controversies.  I 
am  against  agitation,  Korth  and  South.  I  am  against  local 


167 

ideas  Xorth  or  South,  and  against  all  narrow  and  local  contests. 
I  am  an  American,  and  I  know  no  locality  in  America  :  that  is 
tny  country.  My  heart,  my  sentiment,  my  judgment  demand 
of  me,  that  I  shall  pursue  such  a  course  as  shall  promote  the 
good  and  the  harmony  of  the  whole  country.  This  I  shall  do, 
God  willing,  to  the  end  of  the  chapter." 


MR.    CLAY  S   SPEECH. 

"  MR.  PRESIDENT  :  In  the  progress  of  this  debate,  it  has  been 
again  and  again  argued,  that  perfect  tranquillity  reigns  through 
out  the  country,  and  that  there  is  no  disturbance  threatening  its 
peace,  endangering  its  safety,  but  that  which  was  produced  by 
busy,  restless  politicians.  It  has  been  maintained  that  the  sur 
face  of  the  public  mind  is  perfectly  smooth,  and  undisturbed  by 
a  single  billow.  I  most  heartily  wish  I  could  concur  in  this 
picture  of  general  tranquillity  that  has  been  drawn  upon  both 
sides  of  the  Senate.  I  am  no  alarmist ;  nor,  I  thank  God,  at 
the  advanced  age  at  which  his  providence  has  been  pleased  to 
allow  me  to  reach,  am  I  very  easily  alarmed  by  any  human 
event.  But  I  totally  misread  the  signs  of  the  times,  if  there  bo 
that  state  of  profound  peace  and  quiet,  that  absence  of  all  just 
cause  of  apprehension  of  future  danger  to  this  Confederacy, 
which  appears  to  be  entertained  by  some  other  Senators.  Mr. 
President,  all  the  tendencies  of  the  times,  I  lament  to  say,  are 
towards  disquietude,  if  not  more  fatal  consequences.  When 
before,  in  the  midst  of  profound  peace  with  all  the  nations  of 
the  earth,  have  we  seen  a  convention,  representing  a  consider 
able  portion  of  one  great  part  of  the  Republic,  meet  to  deliber 
ate  about  measures  of  future  safety  in  connection  with  great 
interests  of  that  quarter  of  the  country  ?  When  before  have  we 
seen,  not  one,  but  more — some  half  a  dozen — legislative  bodies 
solemnly  resolving  that  if  any  one  of  these  measures — the  ad 
mission  of  California,  the  adoption  of  the  Wilmot  proviso,  of  the 
abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia — should  be 
adopted  by  Congress,  measures  of  an  extreme  character,  for  the 
safety  of  the  great  interests  to  which  I  refer,  in  a  particular  sec 
tion  of  the  country,  would  be  resorted  to  ?  For  years,  this  sub 
ject  of  the  abolition  of  slavery,  even  within  this  District  of  Co- 


1G8  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

lumbia,  small  as  is  the  number  of  slaves  here,  has  been  a  source 
of  constant  irritation  and  disquiet.  So  of  the  subject  of  the  re 
covery  of  fugitive  slaves  who  have  escaped  from  their  lawful 
owners  ;  not  as  a  mere  border  contest,  as  has  been  supposed — 
although  there,  undoubtedly,  it  has  given  rise  to  more  irritation 
than  in  other  portions  of  the  Union — but  everywhere  through 
the  slaveholding  country  it  has  been  felt  as  a  great  evil,  a  great 
wrong,  which  required  the  intervention  of  Congressional  power. 
But  these  two  subjects,  unpleasant  as  has  been  the  agitation  to 
which  they  have  given  rise,  are  nothing  in  comparison  to  those 
which  have  sprung  out  of  the  acquisitions  recently  made  from 
the  republic  of  Mexico.  These  are  not  only  great  and  leading 
causes  of  just  apprehension  as  respects  the  future,  but  all  the 
minor  circumstances  of  the  day  intimate  danger  ahead,  whatever 
may  be  its  final  issue  and  consequence. 

Mr.  President,  I  will  not  dwell  upon  other  concomitant 
causes,  all  having  the  same  tendency,  and  all  well  calculated  to 
awaken,  to  arouse  us — if,  as  I  hope  the  fact  is,  we  are  all  of  us 
sincerely  desirous  of  preserving  this  Union — to  arouse  us  to  dan 
gers  which  really  exist,  without  underrating  them  upon  the  one 
hand,  or  magnifying  them  upon  the  other." 

In  reply  to  Mr.  HALE,  Mr.  CLAY,  in  another  speech,  July 
26,  1850,  said :  "  But  I  stand  up  here  for  this  measure,  and  I 
do  not  want  the  Senator  to  deal  in  declamation.  I  ask  him 
what  right  is  sacrificed  by  the  North  in  this  measure  ?  Let  him 
tell  me  if  the  North  does  not  get  almost  every  thing,  and  the 
South  nothing  but  her  honor — her  exemption  from  usurped  au 
thority  to  the  Texas  land,  which  I  have  mentioned,  together 
with  the  fugitive  slave  proposition,  and  an  exemption  from  agi 
tation  on  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  I 
do  not  want  general  broad-cast  declamation,  but  specifications. 
Let  us  meet  them  as  men,  point  upon  point,  argument  upon  ar 
gument.  Show  us  the  power  here  to  which  Northern  sacrifices 
are  made.  Show  what  sacrifices,  what  is  sacrificed  by  the 
North  in  this  bill.  That  is  what  I  want." 

The  compromise  resolutions  of  Mr.  CLAY,  and  the  report  of 
the  Select  Committee  of  Thirteen,  to  whom  the  whole  subject 
had  been  referred,  were  in  the  main  sustained  by  both  Houses 
of  Congress,  but  not  in  form.  Instead  of  one  bill,  separate  bills 


169 

were  brought  in  and  passed.  California  was  admitted  as  a 
State,  notwithstanding  no  territorial  government  had  been  es 
tablished  over  her,  and  notwithstanding  the  Constitution  pro 
hibited  slavery.  Eighteen  Southern  Senators  voted  against 
her  admission ;  and  ten  Senators  presented  a  protest  against 
it,  on  the  ground  that  the  portion  of  the  inhabitants  of  Cali 
fornia,  who  acted  in  the  premises,  did  so  without  authority, 
and,  in  doing  so,  made  an  odious  discrimination  against  the 
property  of  fifteen  slaveholding  States ;  on  the  ground  that  the 
bill  defeats  the  right  of  the  slaveholding  States  to  a  common 
or  equal  enjoyment  of  the  territory  of  the  Union  ;  on  the  ground 
that  "  to  vote  for  the  bill  would  be  to  agree  to  a  principle  that 
may  exclude  forever,  as  it  does  now,  the  States  wThich  we  repre 
sent,  from  all  enjoyment  of  the  common  territory  of  the  Union  "  ; 
and  also  on  other  grounds.  This  protest  the  majority  of  the 
Senate  refused  to  admit  into  its  journal,  twenty-two  voting 
against  admitting  it,  and  nineteen  in  favor.  The  bill  to  estab 
lish  a  territorial  government  over  New  Mexico  and  Utah,  with 
power  to  be  admitted  into  the  Union  either  with  slavery  or 
without  slavery,  was  passed,  ten  Northern  Senators  voting 
against  it.  The  fugitive  slave  law  was  passed,  twelve  Northern 
Senators  voting  against  it.  The  Texas  boundary  bill  was  passed 
by  a  vote  of  thirty  to  twenty.  The  bill  for  the  abolition  of  the 
slave-trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia  was  also  passed. 

In  urging  the  Senate  to  pass  these  bills,  Mr.  CLAY,  in  his 
great  speech,  July  26,  1850,  said :  "  "Will  you  go  home  and 
leave  all  in  disorder,  confusion — all  unsettled,  all  open  ?  The 
contentions  and  agitations  of  the  past  will  be  increased  and 
augmented  by  the  agitations  resulting  from  our  neglect  to  de 
cide  them.  Sir,  we  shall  stand  condemned  by  all  human  judg 
ment  below  ;  and,  of  that  above,  it  is  not  for  rne  to  speak.  "We 
shall  stand  condemned  in  our  own  consciences,  by  our  own  con 
stituents,  and  by  our  own  country.  *  *  The  bill  may  be  de 
feated.  It  is  possible  that,  for  the  chastisements  of  our  sins  or 
transgressions,  the  rod  of  Providence  may  be  applied  to  us,  may 
be  still  suspended  over  us.  But  if  defeated,  it  will  be  a  triumph 
of  ultraism  and  impracticability  ;  a  triumph  of  the  most  extra 
ordinary  conjunction  of  extremes  ;  a  victory  won  by  abolition 
ism  ;  a  victory  won  by  free-soilism ;  the  victory  of  discord 


170  TIIE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

and  agitation  over  peace  and  tranquillity ;  and  I  pray  to  Al 
mighty  God  that  it  may  not,  in  consequence  of  the  inauspicious 
result,  lead  to  the  most  unhappy  and  disastrous  consequences 
to  our  beloved  country." 

REMARKS. 

1.  The  South  felt  injured  by  the  efforts  made  by  the  North 
to  exclude  her  institutions  from  the  territories  and  the  new 
States,  on  the  ground  of  her  unworthiness.     She  remembered 
the  efforts  of  the  North  to  prevent  Missouri  from  being  admitted 
into  the  Union  upon  an  equal  footing  with  the  other  States. 
She  not  only  felt  injured  but  also  insulted  by  these  efforts, 
and  by  the  language  used  in  Congress  by  Northern  men,,  and 
generally  by  the  Northern  press.     The  Southern  States  could 
not  find  any  title-deed  by  which  the  landed  estate  was  entailed 
upon  the  North,  while  the  other  members  of  the  family  were  to 
be  dismissed  dowTerless,  and  upbraided. 

2.  Portions  of  the  North  had  endeavored  to  deprive  the 
South  of  her  slave  representation,  by  proposing  an  alteration  of 
the  Constitution. 

3.  Large  portions  of  the  people  of  the  North  refused  to  de 
liver  up  fugitive  slaves  on  the  claim  of  their  masters ;  and  by 
thus  refusing  to  perform  their  part  of  the  stipulation,  freed  the 
South  from  its  full  obligations  to  keep  the  Constitution  in  its 
relation  to  them,  as  violators  of  the  Constitution.     Some  of  the 
States  passed  bills  designed  to  obstruct  the  recovery  of  fugitive 
slaves.     Pennsylvania,  in  1780,  passed  an  act  of  comity,  allow 
ing  masters  to  bring  their   slaves  into  the  State,  and  sojourn 
there  six  months,  without  forfeiting  them.     Pennsylvania  in 
time  became  intolerant,  and  repealed  that  act.     New  York  also 
repealed  her  sojournment  act,  by  which  the  master  was  allowed 
to  sojourn  in  the  State  nine  months  with  his  slaves,  without 
subjecting  them  to  emancipation.     The  sentiments  of  the  people 
had  been  such  in  the  Northern  States,  that  it  was  perfectly  safe 
for  an  owner  of  slaves,  on  visiting  the  North,  to  bring  such 
of  them  with  him  as  he  needed,  without  any  intermeddling  to 
deprive  him  of  their  services.     That  liberal  and  national  senti 
ment  was  now  giving  place  to  an  intolerant,  jealous,  and  inter- 


KEMAEKS.  171 

meddling  spirit.  The  present  writer  distinctly  remembers  the 
time  when  Southern  men  brought  on  their  slaves  to  Connecticut 
for  a  temporary  sojournment,  without  experiencing  any  embar 
rassment  in  respect  to  their  slaves,  or  any  indignity  to  them 
selves.  The  present  writer  also  remembers  that  afterwards, 
when  an  intolerant  spirit  became  rife  in  New  England,  South 
ern  men  who  brought  their  slaves  simply  on  a  visit  to  their 
friends  and  relatives  for  a  few  weeks,  were  informed  that  slave 
holders  were  abhorred  of  God  and  despised  of  men  ;  wrhile  argu 
ments  and  persuasions  were  dishonorably  addressed  to  their 
slaves,  to  entice  them  away  from  their  masters. 

4.  Slave-stealing    organizations    were    encouraged    in    the 
Northern  States,  so  that  by  their  agency,  with  the  connivance 
of  Northern  men,  the  South  lost  a  large  number  of  slaves  and 
a  great  amount  of  property  annually,  through  what  was  called 
the  underground  railroad. 

5.  Southern  clergymen  were  excluded  from  Northern  pul 
pits,  and  Southern  Christians  from  Northern  communion  tables, 
and  Southern  students  were  made  uncomfortable  by  the  intol 
erance  of  the  abolition  spirit  of  the  North.    In  one  of  the  North 
ern  colleges,  a  respectable  Southern  clergyman  was  invited  to 
preach  on  the  Sabbath  in  the  college  chapel.     Thereupon  cer 
tain  abolitionists  among  the  students  addressed  a  petition  to  the 
president,  requesting  that  the  clergyman  should  be  excluded 
from  the  pulpit,  after  he  had  been  invited  by  the  proper  au 
thority  to  occupy  it.     By  this  arrogant  conduct  of  these  stu 
dents,  who  were  wise  in  their  own  conceits  above  their  teachers, 
the  college  was  thrown  into  a  state  of  violent  fermentation,  and 
the  Southern  clergyman  felt  himself  constrained  to  decline  ful 
filling  his  engagement.     In  justice  to  that  college,  it  should  be 
added,  that  the  students  in  all  the  classes,  after  discussing  the 
bearing  and  nature  of  the  petition  for  something  like  half  a  day 
in  a  public  meeting,  passed  a  vote  that  the  president  of  the* 
college,  who  was  likewise  Professor  of  Divinity,  was  author 
ized  to  supply  the  pulpit  for  the  instruction  of  the  students  a& 
he  should  see  fit,  without  being  controlled  by  the  intermeddling 
of  the  students,  thus  censuring  the  petitioners.     It  should  be 
added,  that  the  invitation  to  the  clergyman  was  not  withdrawn 
by  the  president,  or  the  officer  whose  place  the  Southern  gen 
tleman  was  to  fill  on  that  Sabbath. 


172 


THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 


6.  Incendiary  publications,  adapted  to  produce  insurrection 
among  the  slaves,  had   been   sent  by  Northern   abolitionists 
through  the  Southern  States  by  mail. 

7.  While  the  fugitive  slave  bill  was  under  consideration  in 
the  Senate,  Mr.  DAVIS,  of  Massachusetts,  moved  to  amend  the 
bill  in  such  a  way  as  to  protect  free  negroes  going  to  Southern 
ports,  against  seizure  and  imprisonment.    Such  persons  had  been 
seized   and   imprisoned   in  Charleston,   S.   C.,  and   elsewhere, 
under   State  laws,   much   to   the   dissatisfaction   of   Northern 
States,  where  these  imprisoned  negroes  were  considered  as  citi 
zens  of  the  United  States,  because  they  were  citizens  of  some 
of    the   Northern   States.      Massachusetts,   the   acknowledged 
champion  of  the  North,  resolved  to  try  conclusions  with  South 
Carolina  on  the  constitutionality  of  those  acts  of  the  latter  by 
which  the  negro  citizens  of  the  former  had  been  imprisoned. 
For  this  purpose,  Mr.   SAMUEL  HOAR  was  appointed  by  the 
Governor  of  Massachusetts,  under  the  authority  of  the  Legis 
lature,  as  an  agent  to  collect  information  concering  those  citi 
zens  of  Massachusetts,  who  had  been  imprisoned  under  the  laws 
of  South  Carolina,  and  also  to  prosecute  one  or  more  suits  in 
behalf  of  any  citizen  thus  imprisoned,  for  the  purpose  of  having 
the  legality  of  such  imprisonment  tried  and  determined  in  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.     It  was  declared  in  the 
Senate  of  the   United  States,   "  that  Massachusetts  has  been 
anxious  to  do  one  single  thing,  and  nothing  else,  and  that  is,  to 
submit  this  question  to  the  tribunal  which  the  Constitution  has 
provided  for  its  final  settlement."     If  these  "  laws  are  decided 
to  be  constitutional  acts,  she  will  acquiesce  in  the  decision." 
Massachusetts  thus  claimed  that,  by  adopting  negroes  as  her 
own  citizens,  they  should  be  reckoned   elsewhere  throughout 
the  country  as  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

South  Carolina,  on  the  other  hand,  took  the  ground,  that 
negroes  are  not  citizens  of  the  United  States  within  the  meaning 
of  the  Constitution,  and  that  the  emissary  sent  by  Massachusetts 
for  the  avowed  purpose  of  interfering  with  her  institutions  and 
disturbing  her  peace,  should  be  expelled  from  her  territory. 

The  mission  of  Mr.  HOAR,  and  his  expulsion,  created  bad 
blood  in  South  Carolina  and  in  Massachusetts.  Massachusetts 
complained  bitterly  that  she  was  not  allowed  by  South  Carolina 


REMARKS.  173 

to  try  tlic  constitutionality  of  her  claim,  that  her  free  negro 
citizens  should  be  considered  as  citizens  of  the  United  States. 
When  the  question  was  settled  by  the  Supreme  Court,  in  the 
Dred  Scott  decision,  that  negroes  are  not  citizens  of  the  United 
States  within  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution,  did  Massachu 
setts  acquiesce  in  the  decision  ? 

8.  There  was  great  dissatisfaction  in  New  England  with  the 
fugitive  law,  as  there  would  have  been  with  any  law  which 
would  be  efficacious  in  restoring  fugitive  slaves.     The  people 
of  that  section  practically  refused  to  obey  the  fugitive  slave 
law  of  1793,  and  also  the  law  of  1850.     When  Mr.  WEBSTER 
announced  his  intention  of  supporting  a  law  for  the  more  ef 
fectual  reclamation  of  fugitive  slaves,  Mr.  CALHOUN  is  said  to 
have  replied  :  "  What  if  you  do  enact  such  a  bill  ?    The  people 
of  New  England  will  not  submit  to  it."     The  fugitive,  Sims, 
was  recovered  by  his  owner,  but  at  an  expense  to  him,  it  was 
said,  of  $3,000,  aided  though  he  was  by  the  General  Govern 
ment,  and  by  some  of  the  most  able  men  of  Boston.    The  fugi 
tive,  Burns,  was  recovered,  but  at  an  expense  to  the  Govern 
ment  and  his  owner  of  as  much  as  $30,000.    The  law  has  been 
practically  a  dead  letter  except  in  a  few  cases.     Thus  the  South 
lost  nearly  all  that  it  expected  to  gain  by  the  Compromise 
Measures  of  1850.     The  Northern  States,  in  this  respect,  were 
not  faithful  to  the  Compromise  Measures,  as  is  proved  by  the 
personal  liberty  bills  passed  by  different  Legislatures,  for  the 
purpose  of  throwing  obstacles  in  the  wray  of  reclaiming  fugitive 
slaves.    "  The  entire  moral  impossibility  of  effecting  the  forcible 
reclamation  of  fugitive  slaves  in  New  England  may  therefore 
be  solemnly  regarded  as  a  fixed  state  of  things  ;  and  the  great 
problem  to  be  solved  by  politicians  and  statesmen  is,  not  how 
they  can  remove  this  state  of  things,  but  how  they  shall  adapt 
the  laws  and  institutions  of  the  country  to  it."    This  language 
from  a  respectable  pamphlet,  published  in  1850,  expresses  a 
sentiment  that  was  common  in  New  England  at  that  time.    Mr. 
WEBSTER  exhorted  Massachusetts  to  "  conquer  her  prejudices  " 
on  this  subject.     New  England  needed  the  same  exhortation, 
though  not  generally  to  the  same  extent,  as  Massachusetts. 

9.  What  was  the  effect  of  the  passage  of  the  Compromise 
Measures  upon  the  country  ?    Salutary  and  quieting,  at  least  for 


174:  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

a  season.  The  Senators,  CASS,  CLAY,  COBB,  DICKINSON,  FOOTE, 
and  others,  who  had  promoted  the  compromise,  were  applauded 
by  the  country  generally  for  their  efforts  to  heal  the  sectional 
difficulties.  Mr.  CALHOUN  had  died,  and  Mr.  "WEBSTER  had  re 
signed  his  place  for  a  seat  in  the  cabinet,  before  the  measures 
were  passed.  Patriotic  and  moderate  men  of  both  political 
parties  were  generally  disposed  to  be  satisfied  with  the  compro 
mises.  The  abolition  wing  of  the  "Whig  party  and  the  abolition 
wing  of  the  Democratic  party  at  the  North  were  not  satisfied 
with  the  fugitive  slave  law,  and  objected  to  making  the  North, 
a  "  slave-hunting  ground,"  and  with  some  intemperance  of  lan 
guage  denounced  a  slave-catchers."  By  their  united  efforts 
they  influenced  the  Legislatures  of  several  Northern  States  to 
pass  unconstitutional  personal  liberty  bills  for  the  purpose,  it 
would  seem,  of  defeating  the  object  of  the  fugitive  slave  bill, 
and  thus  violating  their  constitutional  obligations. 

The  following  resolution,  with  some  others,  passed  by  the 
Common  Council  of  the  city  of  Chicago,  shows  the  temper  of 
the  times  in  certain  sections  of  the  Northern  States.  "  Resolved, 
that  the  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress  from  the  Free 
States,  who  aided  and  assisted  in  the  passage  of  this  infamous 
law,  (the  fugitive  slave  law,)  and  those  who  basely  sneaked 
away  from  their  seats,  and  thereby  evaded  the  question,  richly 
merit  the  reproach  of  all  lovers  of  freedom,  and  are  fit  only  to 
be  ranked  with  the  traitors,  BENEDICT  ARNOLD  and  JUDAS  Is- 
CARIOT,  who  betrayed  his  Lord  and  Master  for  thirty  pieces  of 
silver." 

As  the  spirit  indicated  by  this  resolution  prevailed  exten 
sively  in  the  Northern  States,  so  it  showed  itself  in  the  enact 
ment  of  personal  liberty  bills  by  State  Legislatures  ;  in  the  or 
ganized  support  of  underground  railroads  for  carrying  off  slaves 
to  Canada ;  and  in  the  rescue  by  Northern  mobs  of  fugitives 
from  the  legal  officers  appointed  by  the  General  Government. 
Such  an  act  of  a  mob  the  present  writer  once  witnessed,  stand 
ing  within  a  few  feet  of  the  commissioner  from  whom  the  rescue 
was  made. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

GENERAL  PIERCED   ADMINISTRATION". 
MARCH  4,  1853— MARCH  4,  1857. 

AT  the  election  of  General  FRANKLIN  PIERCE,  the  Demo 
cratic  candidate,  there  was  not  a  very  extensive  sectional  feel 
ing.  Both  the  successful  and  the  unsuccessful  candidate,  Gen 
eral  SCOTT,  had  supporters  in  both  the  Northern  and  the 
Southern  sections  of  the  country.  The  Abolition  or  sectional 
party  threw  about  150,000  votes  for  their  candidate.  Both  the 
Democratic  and  the  Whig  national  nominating  conventions  en 
dorsed  the  Compromise  Measures  of  1850. 

Still  it  must  be  admitted,  that  in  the  Northern  States  there 
was  considerable  opposition  to  one  portion  of  the  Compromise 
Measures,  namely,  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law ;  just  as  there  had 
been  to  the  law  of  1793,  and  just  as  there  would  have  been  to 
any  law  that  would  be  effectual  in  carrying  out  the  provision 
of  the  Constitution  on  this  s abject.  Men  were  clamorous  for 
its  repeal,  though  they  would  retain  other  portions  of  the  Com 
promise  Measures  which  neVer  could  have  been  carried  through 
Congress,  except  they  had  been  connected  with  the  fugitive 
slave  law.  So  strong  was  the  opposition  to  that  law,  that  com 
munities  by  mobs  or  connivance,  and  State  Legislatures  by 
personal  liberty  bills,  practically  repealed  it,  and  thus  violated 
not  only  the  Compromise  of  1850,  but  also  the  Constitution. 
So  strong  was  this  opposition  to  that  law  in  Boston,  that 
Faneuil  Hall  was  closed  against  DANIEL  WEBSTER,  because  he 
had  advocated  the  Compromise  Measures.  It  was  on  that  oc 
casion  that  he  said,  "  Massachusetts  must  conquer  her  preju- 


176  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

dices."  Northern  men  were  talking  about  a  "  higher  law," 
which  absolved  them  from  obligation  to  carry  out  the  provi 
sions  of  the  Constitution.  They  showed  as  much  opposition  to 
the  Compromise  of  1850,  as  Northern  men  of  the  preceding 
generation  did  to  the  Missouri  Compromise  of  1820.  There 
was  only  wanting  an  occasion  to  call  forth  a  general  sectional 
excitement.  That  occasion  was  forthcoming. 

On  the  3d  of  March,  1854,  the  bill  to  organize  the  Terri 
tories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  was  passed  in  the  Senate  by  a 
vote  of  37  to  14,  by  which  the  slavery  restriction,  passed  by  the 
Missouri  Compromise,  was  removed,  and  the  people  in  those 
territories  were  thus  permitted  to  form  their  own  institutions, 
without  the  interference  of  Congress.  The  intent  and  meaning 
of  the  Bill  was,  that  "  Congress  should  neither  legislate  slavery 
into  the  territories  nor  out  of  them." 

On  the  introduction  of  the  bill  by  Mr.  DOUGLAS,  the  chair 
man  of  the  Committee  on  Territories,  and  before  he  could  have 
an  opportunity  for  discussing  it,  and  thus  showing  to  the  coun 
try  what  were  its  merits,  an  u  Appeal,"  in  opposition  to  it,  was 
addressed  to  the  people  of  the  United  States.  This  Appeal  bore 
date  Jan.  19,  1854,  and  was  signed  by  Senators  CHASE  of  Ohio, 
and  SUMNER  of  Massachusetts,  and  by  members  of  the  House, 
EDWARD  WADE  and  J.  E.  GIDDINGS  of  Ohio,  GERRITT  SMITH  of 
New  York,  and  ALEXANDER  DE  WITT  of  Massachusetts.  The 
following  is  a  portion  of  that  appeal : 

"  SHALL   SLAVERY   BE   PERMITTED   IN   NEBRASKA  ?  " 

"  FELLOW-CITIZENS  : — As  Senators  and  Eepresentatives  in 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  it  is  our  duty  to  warn  our 
constituents  (?)  whenever  imminent  danger  menaces  the  freedom 
of  our  institutions  and  the  permanency  of  our  Union.  [Were 
the  people  of  the  United  States  their  constituents  ?] 

"  Such  danger,  as  we  firmly  believe,  now  impends,  and  we 
earnestly  solicit  your  prompt  attention  to  it. 

"  We  arraign  this  bill  as  a  gross  violation  of  a  sacred  pledge ; 
as  a  criminal  betrayal  of  precious  rights  ;  as  part  and  parcel  of 
an  atrocious  plot  to  exclude  from  a  vast  unoccupied  region  emi 
grants  from  the  Old  World,  and  free  laborers  from  our  own 


SHALL    SLAVERY    BE    PERMITTED   IN   NEBRASKA?  177 

States,  and  convert  it  into  a  dreary  region  of  despotism  inhab 
ited  by  masters  and  slaves. 

"  We  appeal  to  the  people.  We  warn  you  that  the  dearest 
interests  of  freedom  and  the  Union  are  in  imminent  peril. 
Demagogues  may  tell  you,  that  the  safety  of  the  Union  can  be 
maintained  only  by  submitting  to  the  demands  of  slavery.  We 
tell  you  that  the  safety  of  the  Union  can  only  be  insured  by  the 
full  recognition  of  the  just  claims  of  freedom  and  man.  The 
Union  was  formed  to  establish  justice  and  secure  the  blessings 
of  liberty.  When  it  fails  to  accomplish  these  ends,  it  will  be 
worthless ;  and  when  it  becomes  worthless,  it  cannot  long 
endure. 

"  We  implore  Christians  and  Christian  ministers  to  inter 
pose.  Their  Divine  religion  requires  them  to  behold  in  every 
man  a  brother,  and  to  labor  for  the  advancement  and  regenera 
tion  of  the  human  race.  *  *  * 

"  Let  all  protest,  earnestly  and  emphatically,  by  corre 
spondence  and  through  the  press,  by  memorials  and  resolutions 
of  public  meetings  and  legislative  bodies,  and  in  whatever  mode 
may  seem  expedient,  against  this  enormous  crime." 

Thus  addressed,  the  people  of  the  Northern  States  promptly 
responded  to  the  call,  in  the  very  modes  pointed  out  in  this 
proclamation,  as  the  "  appeal  "  was  styled  in  Congress.  They 
were  combustible,  and  this  "  appeal "  supplied  the  torch.  Forth 
with,  the  Northern  regions  of  the  Union  were  in  a  blaze  of  ex 
citement.  The  pen,  the  press,  the  pulpit,  the  political  forum, 
and  the  halls  of  legislation,  were  pat  in  requisition  to  resist  the 
passage  of  the  bill.  As  an  exponent  of  the  general  feeling,  the 
"  protest "  of  the  clergymen  of  New  England  may  be  taken. 
The  object  of  the  protest  may  be  found  in  the  circular  which 
was  "  simultaneously  sent  to  every  clergyman  in  New  Eng 
land,"  and  which  was  signed  by  CHARLES  LOWELL,  LYMAN 
BEECHER,  BARON  STOWE,  SEBASTIAN  STREETER,  committee  of 
clergymen  of  Boston,  and  was  dated  Feb.  22,  1854.  "  It  is 
hoped,"  that  circular  declares,  "  that  every  one  of  you  will  ap 
pend  your  names  to  it,  and  thus  furnish  to  the  nation  and  the 
age  the  sublime  and  influential  spectacle  of  the  great  Christian 
lody  of  the  North  (?)  united  as  one  man  in  favor  of  freedom 
and  of  solemn  plighted  faith." 


178  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

"  If  you  have  already,  either  as  a  private  Christian  or  as  a 
clergyman,  signed  any  similar  document,  please  to  sign  this 
also,  as  it  is  earnestly  desired  to  embrace  in  this  movement  the 
clerical  voice  of  New  England. 

"  It  is  respectfully  submitted,  whether  the  present  is  not  a 
crisis  of  sufficient  magnitude  and  imminence  of  danger  to  the 
liberties  and  integrity  of  our  nation,  to  warrant  and  even  de 
mand  the  services  of  the  clergy  of  all  denominations,  in  arous 
ing  the  masses  of  the  people  to  its  Comprehension,  through  the 
press,  and  even  the  pulpit." 


CLERICAL  PROTEST. 

"  To  the  Honorable  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  in 
Congress  assembled : 

"  The  undersigned,  clergymen  of  different  denominations  in 
New  England,  hereby  in  the  name  of  Almighty  God,  and  in 
His  presence,  do  solemnly  protest  against  what  is  known  as  the 
Nebraska  Bill,  or  any  repeal  or  modification  of  the  existing 
legal  prohibition  of  slavery  in  that  part  of  the  national  domain 
which  it  is  proposed  to  organize  into  the  territories  of  Nebraska 
and  Kansas.  We  protest  against  it  as  a  great  moral  wrong,  as 
a  breach  of  faith,  eminently  unjust  to  the  moral  principles  of 
the  community,  and  subversive  of  all  confidence  in  national 
engagements  ;  as  a  measure  full  of  danger  to  the  peace,  and 
even  the  existence,  of  our  beloved  Union,  and  exposing  us  to 
the  righteous  judgments  of  the  Almighty ;  and  your  protest- 
ants,  as  in  duty  bound,  will  ever  pray. — Boston,  Massachusetts -, 
March  1,  1854." 

My  limits  do  not  allow  me  to  quote  the  remarks  made  in 
the  Senate  respecting  the  "  appeal  "  and  the  "  protest."  The 
ground  taken  in  the  "  appeal  "  in  opposition  to  the  bill  for  the 
repeal  of  the  slavery  restriction  north  of  36°  30'  was,  first,  that 
it  would  be  contrary  to  the  "  original  settled  policy  of  the  United 
States,"  as  proved  by  the  ordinance  of  ITS 7,  to  permit  slavery 
in  the  territories  ;  and  secondly,  that  it  would  be  a  violation  of 
a  "  sacred  pedge,"  or  compact  made  in  1820,  in  the  Missouri 
Compromise. 


CLERICAL  PROTEST.  179 

Mr.  DOUGLAS  denied  that  it  was  the  "  original  settled 
policy  "  of  the  United  States  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  terri 
tories,  inasmuch  as  slavery  was  permitted  and  protected  in  the 
territory  of  Tennessee  ;  and  in  the  legislation  respecting  Missis 
sippi,  the  ordinance  of  1787  was  adopted,  with  the  exception  of 
the  anti-slavery  clause. 

"  That  the  repeal  was  a  gross  violation  of  a  sacred  pledge," 
has  been  extensively  denied  both  before  and  since  its  accom 
plishment.  The  following  are  some  of  the  grounds  of  the 
repeal,  in  the  words  of  another  : 

1.  "  The  South  was  not  bound  by  that  compact  or  compro 
mise,  because  it  was  made  without  the  least  consideration  ;  that 
is,  because  she  received  nothing  for  what  she  conceded.     For 
Missouri,  as  our  adversaries  now  admit,  had  a  perfect  right  to 
admission  without  any  stipulation  on  the  part  of  the  South ; 
she  had  a  perfect  right  to  admission,  says  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  -United  States,  without  any  such  terms  or  conditions, 
under  and  by  the  Federal  Constitution  alone.     If  she  had  to 
pay  for  this  right,  it  was  because  the  dominant  party  at  the 
North  then  took  their  stand  against  the  Constitution  of  the 
country,  and   nothing  less,  it  was  believed,  would  save  the 
Union  from  shipwreck,  dissolution,  and  ruin.     The  line  of  36° 
30'  was  then  obtained,  or  rather  extorted,  without  a  t  valuable 
consideration.'     Here  is  what  is  called  a  nudum  pactum,  a  con 
tract  that  is  void,  and  it  imposed  no  sort  of  obligation  either  in 
law  or  in  conscience. 

2.  "  The  South  was  not  bound  by  the  Compromise  of  1820, 
because  it  was  not  fulfilled  by  the  North."    The  facts  on  this 
point  are  to  be  found  in  the  preceding  pages. 

3.  "  The  South  was  not  bound  by  the  Compromise  of  1820, 
because  it  was  unconstitutional,"  as  has  since  been  decided  by 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United   States.     Moreover,  some 
Northern  statesmen  declared  they  did  not  esteem  it  binding  as  a 
compact,  inasmuch  as  there  were  no  competent  parties  to  it. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS,  after  having  spoken  of  what  he  deemed  the 
impropriety  of  said  "  appeal "  in  the  circumstances  of  its  presen 
tation,  uses  the  following  language  :  "  I  do  not  like,  I  never  did 
like,  the  system  of  legislation  on  our  part,  by  which  a  geo 
graphical  line,  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  nature,  and  climate, 


180  THE   SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

and  soil,  and  of  the  laws  of  God,  should  be  run  to  establish  in 
stitutions  for  a  people ;  yet  out  of  a  regard  for  the  peace  and 
quiet  of  the  country,  out  of  respect  for  past  pledges,  out  of 
a  desire  to  adhere  faithfully  to  all  pledges,  and  out  of  a  desire 
to  adhere  faithfully  to  all  compromises,  I  sustained  the  Missouri 
Compromise  so  long  as  it  was  in  force,  and  advocated  its  exten 
sion  to  the  Pacific.  ]S"ow  when  that  has  been  abandoned,  when 
it  has  been  superseded,  when  a  great  principle  of  self-govern 
ment  has  been  substituted  for  it,  I  choose  to  cling  to  that  prin 
ciple,  and  abide  in  good  faith  not  only  by  the  letter,  but  by 
the  spirit,  of  the  last  compromise,  (namely,  that  of  1850,  in 
which  the  right  of  framing  their  own  constitutions,  whether  by 
the  admission  or  prohibition  of  slavery,  was  conceded  to  Utah 
and  New  Mexico.) 

"  Sir,  I  do  not  recognize  the  right  of  the  Abolitionists  of 
this  country  to  arraign  me  for  being  false  to  sacred  pledges,  as 
they  have  done  in  their  proclamation.  Let  them  show  when 
and  where  I  have  ever  violated  a  compact.  I  have  proved  that 
I  stood  by  the  compact  of  1820  and  1845,  and  proposed  its  con 
tinuance  in  1848.  I  have  proved  that  the  Freesoilers  and 
Abolitionists  were  the  guilty  parties  who  violated  that  compro 
mise  then.  I  should  like  to  compare  notes  with  those  Abo 
lition  confederates  about  adherence  to  compromises.  When  did 
they  stand  by  or  approve  of  any  one  that  was  ever  made  ? 

"  Did  not  every  Abolitionist  and  Freesoiler  in  America  de 
nounce  the  Missouri  Compromise  in  1820  ?  Did  they  not  for 
years  hunt  down  ravenously  for  his  blood  every  man  who 
assisted  in  making  that  compromise  ?  Did  they  not  in  1845, 
when  Texas  was  annexed,  denounce  all  of  us  who  went  for  the 
annexation  of  Texas  and  for  the  continuation  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise  line  through  it  ?  Did  they  not  in  1848  denounce 
me  as  a  slavery  propagandist  for  standing  by  the  principles  of 
the  Missouri  Compromise,  and  for  proposing  to  continue  the 
Missouri  Compromise  line  to  the  Pacific  Ocean  ?  Did  they  not 
violate  and  repudiate  it  then?  Is  not  the  charge  of  bad  faith 
true  as  to  every  Abolitionist  in  America,  instead  of  being  true 
as  to  me  and  the  committee,  and  those  who  advocate  this 
bill? 

"  They  talk  about  the  bill  being  a  violation  of  the  compro- 


CLERICAL   PROTEST.  181 

mise  measures  of  1850.  "Who  can  show  me  a  man  in  either 
House  of  Congress  who^was  in  favor  of  the  compromise 
measures  of  1850,  and  who  is  not  now  in  favor  of  leaving  the 
people  of  Nebraska  and  Kansas  to  do  as  they  please  upon  the 
subject  of  slavery  according  to  the  provisions  of  my  bill  ?  Is 
there  one  ?  If  so,  I  have  not  heard  of  him.  This  tornado  has 
been  raised  by  the  Abolitionists,  and  the  Abolitionists  alone. 
They  have  made  an  impression  on  the  public  mind  in  the  way 
which  I  have  mentioned,  by  a  falsification  of  the  law  and  the 
facts ;  and  this  whole  organization  against  the  compromise 
measures  of  1850  is  an  Abolition  movement.  I  presume  they 
had  some  hope  of  getting  a  few  tender-footed  Democrats  into 
their  plot ;  and  acting  on  what  they  supposed  they  might  do, 
they  sent  forth  publicly  to  the  world  the  falsehood  that  their 
address  was  signed  by  the  Senators  and  a  majority  of  the 
Representatives  from  the  State  of  Ohio  ;  but  when  we  come  to 
examine  the  signatures  we  find  no  one  Whig  there,  no  one 
Democrat  there,  none  but  pure,  unadulterated  Abolitionists.  *  * 

"  Now  I  ask  the  friends  and  the  opponents  of  the  measure  to 
look  at  it  as  it  is.  Is  not  the  question  involved,  the  simple  one, 
Whether  the  people  of  the  territories  shall  be  allowed  to  do  as 
they  please  upon  the  question  of  slavery,  subject  only  to  the 
limitation  of  the  Constitution  ?  *  *  * 

"  When  you  propose  to  give  them  a  territorial  government, 
do  you  not  acknowledge  that  they  are  capable  of  self-govern 
ment  ?  Having  made  that  acknowledgment,  why  should  you 
not  allow  them  to  exercise  the  rights  of  legislation  ?  Oh,  these 
Abolitionists  are  entirely  willing  to  concede  all  this,  with  one 
exception.  They  say  they  are  willing  to  trust  the  territorial 
legislature,  under  the  limitations  of  the  Constitution,  to  legislate 
on  the  rights  of  inheritance,  to  legislate  in  regard  to  religion, 
education,  morals,  to  legislate  in  regard  to  the  relations  of  hus 
band  and  wife,  of  parent  and  child,  and  guardian  and  ward, 
upon  every  thing  pertaining  to  the  dearest  rights  and  interests 
of  white  men,  but  they  are  not  willing  to  trust  them  to  legislate 
in  regard  to  a  few  miserable  negroes.  That  is  their  single  ex 
ception.  They  acknowledge  that  the  people  of  the  territories 
are  capable  of  deciding  for  themselves  concerning  white  men, 
but  not  in  relation  to  negroes.  The  real  gist  of  the  matter  is 


182  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

this :  Does  it  require  any  higher  degree  of  civilization,  intelli 
gence,  bravery,  and  sagacity,  to  legislate  for  negroes  than  for 
white  men  ?  If  it  does,  we  ought  to  adopt  the  Abolition  doc 
trine  and  go  with  them  against  this  bill.  If  it  does  not,  if  we 
are  willing  to  trust  the  people  with  the  great,  sacred,  funda 
mental  right  of  prescribing  their  own  institutions,  consistent 
with  the  Constitution  of  the  country,  we  must  vote  for  this  bill 
as  reported  by  the  Committee  on  Territories.  That  is  the  only 
question  involved  in  the  bill." 

Mr.  CASS,  while  the  Nebraska  bill  was  under  consideration 
in  the  Senate,  delivered  a  speech  in  which  the  following  para 
graphs  are  found : 

"  Mr.  President,  for  some  years  we  have  heard  a  great  deal 
about  the  fundamental  articles  of  compact,  by  which  govern 
ments  for  the  territory  north-west  of  the  Ohio  were  origi 
nally  instituted ;  and  a  good  many  erroneous  impressions 
have  prevailed  concerning  them.  "What  were  they  ?  Having 
lived  under  a  territorial  government  in  that  region  many  years 
of  my  life,  the  history  of  the  organizations  of  these  political 
communities  is  perfectly  familiar  to  me.  The  Congress  of  the 
old  Confederation,  in  178T,  passed  a  law  establishing  the  north 
western  territory.  It  was  styled  an  ordinance,  and  many  have 
supposed  that  it  derived  peculiar  solemnity  from  the  use  of  this 
term.  But  this  is  a  mistake.  "  Be  it  ordained,"  &c.,  was  the 
formula  of  enactment  before  the  Constitution,  and  this  ordi 
nance  had  no  more  validity  than  the  usual  acts  of  the  old  Con 
gress.  It  has  been  supposed,  too,  tha't  the  whole  of  this  act 
constituted  a  compact.  That  is  an  equal  error. 

"  Now,  sir,  what  is  a  compact  ?  I  have  just  adverted  to  the 
dictionary,  to  the  old  and  standard  English  lexicographer,  to 
ascertain  its  meaning,  and  here  it  is :  'A  compact  is  a  contract, 
an  accord,  or  agreement  between  two  or  more  to  do  or  forbear 
something.'  Now,  sir,  in  applying  this  definition  to  the  case 
before  us,  let  us  inquire  who  were  the  c  two  or  more '  parties 
or  persons  by  whom  this  contract  was  made?  It  will  be 
hard  to  find  them.  The  law  was  passed,  as  I  have  said,  by  the 
old  Confederation ;  and  there  never  was,  in  fact,  any  other 
party  to  it.  What  did  they  undertake  to  do  ?  They  undertook 
to  establish  five  articles  containing  various  provisions  of  more 


CLERICAL   PROTEST.  183 

or  less  importance,  affecting  the  rights  and  interests  of  the 
people  then  occupying,  or  who  might  in  all  time  to  come  oc 
cupy,  the  region  over  which  the  ordinance  extended.  And  they 
declared  that  they  should  never  be  altered  but  in  the  mode 
pointed  out.  And  will  any  man  seriously  contend  that  is  a 
compact  ?  What  other  party  was  there  to  it  ?  There  were  some 
thousands  of  people  then  living  in  that  country,  not  one  of 
whom  heard  of  this  contract,  which  was  forever  to  bind  them 
for  years  and  years  after  its  promulgation.  It  is  an  insult  to 
common  sense  to  say,  that  they  and  their  posterity  are  bound 
by  such  a  one-sided  instrument  as  that. 

"  Besides,  if  there  had  not  been  a  single  man  in  those  re 
gions,  how  could  a  compact  be  established  which  was  forever 
to  operate  on  a  people  thereafter  to  exist  there,  when  no  pro 
vision  was  made  for  submitting  it  to  their  assent,  under  any 
circumstances  or  in  any  future  time  ?  It  is  idle,  sir,  to  talk  of 
the  obligatory  nature  of  a  compact  thus  declared  to  be  such  by 
one  party,  without  the  existence  of  any  other  party  at  the  time, 
and  without  any  arrangement  for  procuring  its  concurrence 
when  such  party  should  come  into  existence.  This  ordinance  is 
destitute  of  the  first  essence  of  mutual  obligation. 

"  But,  sir,  independent  of  the  fatal  objection  of  the  want 
of  parties,  there  was  another  equally  fatal,  and  that  was  the 
want  of  power.  Nothing  was  more  certain  than  that  the  Con 
gress  of  the  Confederation  had  not  the  slightest  authority  to 
establish  territorial  governments  ;  and  there  is  no  man  who  will 
turn  to  the  Articles  of  Confederation  and  examine  them,  who 
will  have  the  least  doubt  upon  the  subject." 

"Mr.  MADISON  said,  in  speaking  upon  the  subject,  <  all  this 
has  been  done/  that  is,  governments  have  been  organized, 
£  without  the  least  color  of  constitutional  authority.'  And  Mr. 
ADAMS  said  <  that  the  ordinance  of  1789  had  been  passed  by 
the  old  Congress  of  the  Confederation  without  authority  from 
the  States.' 

"  These  remarks  prove  that  the  States  of  the  north-west  terri 
tory  have  full  power  to  establish  slavery  in  them  if  they  see  fit. 

"  The  Senator  from  Illinois,  Mr.  DOUGLAS,  told  us  the  other 
day,  proved  to  us,  indeed,  that  his  State  recognized  the  exist 
ence  of  slavery,  notwithstanding  its  eternal  interdiction  in  the 


184  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

ordinance  of  1T89.  And  I  have  never  heard,  until  recently, 
that  the  power  of  the  other  north-western  States  to  do  the  same 
thing  was  either  doubted  or  denied.  If  they  cannot  by  their 
conventions  regulate  the  condition  of  slavery  as  they  please, 
they  have  not  a  just  political  equality  in  the  Union." 


REMARKS. 

1.  After  the  Nebraska  bill  was  passed  in  the  Senate,  the 
"  Emigrant  Aid  Society  "  was  incorporated  by  the  Massachu 
setts  Legislature,  on  the  4th  of  May,  1854,  which  was  some 
weeks  before  the  bill  passed  the  House  and  became  a  law.     A 
new  charter  was  received  in  February,  1855.     The  object- of  its 
formation  was  to  make  Kansas  a  free  State,  by  furnishing  aid 
to  emigrants  who  would  go  there  for  that  purpose.     The  gen 
eral  policy  of  Massachusetts  had  been  to  aid  men  to  stay  in  the 
Commonwealth,  by  establishing  manufactures,  and  by  other 
means,  rather  than  to  aid  them  to  leave  it. 

2.  The  debates  in  Washington,  and  the  passage  of  the  bill, 
created  a  powerful  sectional  excitement  throughout  the  country, 
but  especially  in  Kansas,  where  there  was  a  severe  struggle  be 
tween  the  pro-slavery  and  the  Free-soil  party  for  the  political 
ascendency.     Lecturers  went  through  portions  of  the  Northern 
States  to  obtain  recruits,  and  money,  and  arms,  describing  the 
physical  advantages  of  the  territory  to  be  such  that  it  could  be 
made  a  terrestrial  paradise.     The  love  of  adventure,  the  love  of 
money,  the  love  of  liberty,  and  hatred  or  jealousy  of  the  South, 
were  appealed  to  successfully  for  obtaining  emigrants.     Nor 
were  Southern  men  idle.    Border  ruffians  and  free  State  ruffians 
met  in  Kansas  as  a  battle-ground.     And  elsewhere  "  shrieking, 
bleeding  Kansas  "  was  successfully  employed  by  demagogues 
to  electioneer  for  them,  as  the  especial  friends  of  liberty,  or  of 
slavery,  as  the  case  might  be.     In  Congress,  too,  those  who 
spoke  on  this  subject  became,  if  possible,  more  intemperate  in 
their  language.  Mr.  SUMNER'S  speech  entitled  "  The  crime  against 
Kansas,"  and  Mr.  BROOKE'S' assault  on  him  for  what  he  said  in 
that  speech  concerning  South  Carolina  and  Senator  BUTLER, 
were  exponents  of  the  feeling  which  to  some  extent  existed  in 
the  two  sections  of  the  country  to  which  these  gentlemen  be- 


KEMAKKS.  185 

longed,  and  proved  the  means  of  extending  that  jealousy  and 
making  it  more  intense. 

3.  Was  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  which  was 
the  great  measure  of  General  PIERCE' s  Administration  so  far  as 
sectional  interests  were  concerned,  a  judicious  measure?  It 
seemed  to  be  the  occasion  of  aggravating,  rather  than  of  dimin 
ishing  the  sectional  difficulties  and  the  sectional  hatred.  But 
if  another  course  had  been  taken,  it  might  have  proved  the  oc 
casion  of  as  great  or  even  greater  sectional  difficulties  and  sec 
tional  hatred.  In  this  latter  case,  perhaps,  there  might  not 
have  been  an  opportunity  to  ring  the  changes  upon  the  phrases, 
the  "  traitor  DOUGLAS,"  the  "  Kansas  swindle."  There  might 
not  have  been  so  much  blackguardism  and  disgraceful  person 
alities  in  Congress,  or  as  much  ruffianism  and  bad  blood  gen 
erated  in  the  States,  or  as  much  blood  shed  in  the  territory,  or 
as  many  dragon's  teeth  sown  broadcast  over  the  land  which 
have  since  started  up  armed  men. 

But  when  we  undertake  to  judge  of  the  comparative  wisdom 
of  two  measures,  one  of  which  has  been  adopted,  simply  on  the 
ground  of  results,  we  are  in  danger  of  running  into  error  for  the 
reason  that  one  term  of  the  comparison  is  wanting.  One  class 
of  results  we  never  can  know,  namely,  the  results  of  the  meas 
ure  that  was  not  adopted.  Human  passions  are  refractory  sub 
jects  to  deal  with,  especially  as  exhibited  in  two  great  political 
parties,  jealous  of  each  other,  each  intent  on  the  acquisition  of 
political  power,  and  they  will  often  practically  convert  the 
wisest  measures  into  causes  of  national  arrogance  and  injury. 
After  the  passage  of  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill,  if  things 
had  taken  their  natural  course,  and  men  had  emigrated  west 
ward  according  to  the  more  general  practice  along  the  same 
parallels  of  latitude  ;  if  there  had  not  been  any  unnatural  stimu 
lus  given  to  emigration  by  "  Emigrant  Aid  Societies  "  on  the 
one  hand,  and  "  Friendly  Societies  "  on  the  other ;  if  means  had 
not  been  adopted  to  address  the  combativeness  of  young  men 
and  to  inflame  their  passions  and  their  conscience,  and  to  appeal 
to  their  love  of  gain,  and  to  put  arms  into  their  hands,  as  if  they 
were  to  go  against  enemies  to  win  an  empire,  the  results  of  the 
repeal  of  the  slavery  restriction  north  of  36°  30'  might  have 
been  very  different  from  what  they  were,  and  the  measure 


186  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

might  in  this  case  have  proved  by  the  results  to  be  a  wise 
one.  ^ 

In  regard  to  the  application  of  physical  force  for  correcting 
the  evils  of  the  times  connected  with  slavery,  Mr.  SEWARD,  in 
his  speech  delivered  at  Detroit,  speaks  in  the  following  judicious 
terms :  "  You  ask,  how  are  these  great  evils  to  be  corrected, 
these  great  dangers  to  be  avoided  ?  I  answer,  it  is  to  be  done 
not,  as  some  of  you  have  supposed,  by  heated  debates,  sustained 
by  rifles  and  revolvers  at  "Washington ;  nor  yet  by  sending 
armies,  and  supplies,  and  Sharp's  rifles  into  Kansas.  I  con 
demn  no  necessary  exercise  of  self-defence  in  any  place  where 
public  safety  is  necessary  to  practice  of  the  real  duties  of  cham 
pions  of  freedom.  But  this  is  a  contest  in  wThich  the  race  is  not 
to  the  physically  swift,  nor  the  battle  to  those  who  have  the 
most  muscular  strength.  Least  of  all  is  it  to  be  won  by  retal 
iation  and  revenge." 

It  was  unfortunate  that  the  geographical  line  of  36°  30', 
established  by  the  Missouri  Compromise,  was  not  made  the  rule 
of  division  afterwards,  by  being  extended  to  the  Pacific  Ocean, 
according  to  the  proposal  of  Mr.  DOUGLAS.  It  would  have  pre 
vented  the  disputes  that  afterwards  arose.  This  the  Northern 
members  repeatedly  refused  to  do.  Another  mode  for  settling 
the  difficulty  had  to  be  found,  namely,  the  Constitutional  mode-. 
If  the  geographical  mode  of  division  adopted  in  the  Compromise 
of  1820  could  not  be  carried  out,  then  the  principles  of  the  Com 
promise  of  1850  had  to  be  applied,  namely,  the  principle  of 
popular  sovereignty. 

In  general,  it  may  be  asserted  that  the  Missouri  Compromise 
never  ought  to  have  been  made ;  that  being  made,  it  ought 
not  to  have  been  repealed  ;  and  having  been  repealed,  it  ought 
never  to  be  restored  without  some  modification. 

4.  It  is  not  known  to  the  writer  that  any  similar  "  appeal " 
by  members  of  Congress,  while  a  question  was  pending,  was 
ever  before  made  to  the  people  of  the  United  States.  Neither 
is  it  known  to  the  writer  that  any  similar  "  protest  "  was  ever 
addressed  to  Congress  by  the  clergymen  of  New  England,  in 
their  professional  character,  as  distinguished  from  "private 
citizens." 


CHAPTER  XV. 

JAMES  BUCHANAN'S  ADMINISTRATION. 

MARCH  4,  1857— MARCH  4,  1861. 

ME.  BUCHANAN  was  the  candidate  of  the  Democratic  party 
throughout  both  the  Northern  and  the  Southern  States.  Mr. 
FILLMOEE  was  the  candidate  of  the  Union  party,  embracing 
Conservative  Whigs  and  Americans  throughout  the  Northern 
and  the  Southern  States.  JOHN  C.  FEEMONT  was  the  candidate 
of  the  Republican  party,  which  was  confined  mainly  to  the 
Northern  or  non-slaveholding  States.  This  last  party  grew  up 
out  of  the  troubles  and  excitements  connected  with  the  settle 
ment  of  Kansas,  and  was  cemented  by  a  common  feeling  of  op 
position  to  slavery  and  the  common  hope  of  gaining  political 
power.  It  was  composed,  in  part,  of  the  old  Liberty  party  and 
of  the  Freesoil  party,  and  in  part  of  the  Abolition  wing  of  the 
"Whig  party,  and  in  part  of  others  who  were  disgusted  with  the 
repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  The  origin  of  the  party 
has  been  referred  to  an  anti-Nebraska  convention  held  in  Au 
burn,  New  York,  Sept.  27,  1854,  which  passed  the  following 
resolution :  "  Resolved  that  we  recommend  that  a  convention 
of  Delegates  from  the  Free  States,  equal  in  number  to  their 
Representatives  in  Congress,  be  held  in  Syracuse,  N.  Y.,  on  the* 
4th  of  July,  1856,  to  nominate  candidates  for  the  Presidency  and 
the  Yice-presidency  of  the  United  States  for  the  next  presiden 
tial  election."  This  resolution  was  adopted  by  tremendous 
cheering.  It  was  also  moved  to  call  this  the  "  Republican  Or 
ganization  ; "  which  resolution  was  also  carried..  A  leading 
member  of  that  same  convention  declared  it  to  be-  an  object  of 
that  Republican  party  to  "  employ  all  constitutional  measures 

to  restrain  and  cripple  slavery  where  it  now  exists.77 
13 


188  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

The  proposed  convention  was  held  in  Philadelphia,  in  which 
only  the  Free  States  were  represented.  Among  the  Kesolutions 
passed  were  the  two  following  : 

"  Resolved,  That  we  deny  the  authority  of  Congress,  of  a 
Territorial  Legislature,  of  any  individual  or  association  of  indi 
viduals,  to  give  legal  existence  to  slavery  in  any  Territory  of 
the  United  States,  while  the  present  Constitution  shall  be  main 
tained. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  confers  upon  Congress 
sovereign  power  over  the  Territories  of  the  United  States  for 
their  government,  and  that  in  the  exercise  of  this  power  it  is 
both  the  right  and  the  duty  of  Congress  to  prohibit  in  the  Terri 
tories  those  twin  relics  of  barbarism — polygamy  and  slavery." 

I  do  not  quote  these  resolutions  to  show  their  evident  incon 
sistency  in  admitting  the  sovereignty  of  Congress  over  the  Ter 
ritories,  with  power  to  prohibit  slavery  therein ;  and  then  de 
nying  the  power  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  Territory,  but  only 
to  exhibit  the  sectional  relations  and  bearings,  and  the  spirit  of 
the  convention.  The  ends  aimed  at  were  sectional,  as  were  the 
means  used,  and  the  spirit  manifested,  and  the  men  brought 
forward  as  candidates. 

IS   THE   REPUBLICAN   PARTY   SECTIONAL? 

Mr.  PILLMORE,  in  a  speech  delivered  at  Albany,  in  the  sum 
mer  of  1856,  not  long  after  his  return  from  abroad,  held  the  fol 
lowing  language  in  relation  to  the  politics  of  the  country,  and 
the  approaching  election : 

"  Sir,  you  have  been  pleased  to  say  that  I  have  the  union 
of  these  States  at  heart.  This,  sir,  is  most  true  ;  for  if  there  be 
one  object  dearer  to  me  than  any  other  it  is  the  unity,  prosper 
ity,  and  glory  of  this  great  Republic.  I  confess  frankly,  sir, 
that  I  fear  it  is  in  danger.  I  say  nothing  of  any  particular  sec 
tion,  much  less  of  the  several  candidates  before  the  people. 
I  presume  they  are  all  honorable  men.  But,  sir,  w^hat  do  we 
see  ?  An  exasperated  state  of  feeling  between  the  North  and 
the  South  on  the  most  exciting  of  all  topics,  resulting  in  blood 
shed  and  organized  military  array.  But  this  is  not  all,  sir.  We 
see  a  political  party  presenting  candidates  for  the  Presidency 


THE   REPUBLICAN    PARTY    SECTIONAL.  189 

and  the  Yice-Presidency  selected  for  the  first  time  from  the  Free 
States  alone,  with  the  avowed  purpose  of  electing  these  candi 
dates  by  suffrages  from  one  part  of  the  Union  only,  to  rule  over 
the  whole  United  States. 

"  Can  it  be  possible  that  those  who  are  engaged  in  such  a 
measure  can  have  seriously  reflected  on  the  consequences  which 
must  inevitably  follow  in  case  of  success  ?  Can  they  have  the 
madness  or  the  folly  to  believe  that  our  Southern  brethren 
would  submit  to  be  governed  by  such  a  Chief  Magistrate  ? 
Would  he  be  required  to  follow  the  same  rule  prescribed  by 
those  who  elected  him,  in  making  his  appointments  ?  If  a  man 
living  south  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line  be  not  worthy  to  be 
President  or  Yice-President,  would  it  be  proper  to  select  one 
from  the  same  quarter  as  one  of  his  cabinet  council,  or  to  repre 
sent  the  nation  in  a  foreign  country,  or,  indeed,  to  collect  the 
revenue,  or  administer  the  laws  of  the  United  States  ?  If  not, 
what  new  rule  is  the  President  to  adopt  for  selection  to  office, 
that  the  people  themselves  discard  in  selecting  him  ? 

"  These  are  serious  but  practical  questions,  and  in  order  to 
appreciate  them  fully,  it  is  only  necessary  to  turn  the  tables 
upon  ourselves,  and  suppose  that  the  South,  having  a  majority 
of  the  electoral  votes,  should  declare  that  they  would  only  have 
slave-holders  for  President  and  Yice-President,  and  should  select 
such  by  their  exclusive  suffrages  to  rule  over  us  at  the  North, 
do  you  think  we  would  submit  to  it  ?  No,  not  for  one  moment. 
And  do  you  believe  your  Southern  brethren  less  sensible  on  this 
subject  than  you  are,  or  less  jealous  of  their  rights?  If  you 
do,  let  me  tell  you  you  are  certainly  mistaken.  And  therefore 
you  must  see,  that  if  this  sectional  party  succeeds,  it  leads  in 
evitably  to  the  destruction  -of  this  beautiful  fabric,  reared  by 
our  forefathers,  cemented  by  their  blood,  and  bequeathed  to  us 
as  a  priceless  inheritance. 

"I  tell  you,  my  friends,  that  I  speak  warmly  on  this  sub 
ject,  for  I  feel  that  we  are  in  danger.  I  am  determined  to 
make  a  clean  breast  of  it.  I  will  wash  my  hands  of  the  conse 
quences,  whatever  they  may  be ;  and  I  tell  you  that  we  are 
treading  on  the  brink  of  a  volcano  that  is  liable  at  any  moment 
to  burst  forth  and  overwhelm  the  nation." 

There  were  many  threats  of  disunion  in  case  of  the  election 


190  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

of  Mr.  FREMONT.  Mr.  BURNETT,  member  of  Congress  from 
Kentucky,  after  speaking  of  the  strong  attachment  of  his  State 
to  the  Union,  goes  on  to  say :  "  But,  sir,  if  JOHN  C.  FREMONT 
should  be  elected,  pledged  as  he  is  to  make  war  upon  the  insti 
tutions  of  the  South,  composed  as  his  Administration  would  be 
of  men  from  one  section  of  the  Union,  filled  as  the  Federal 
offices  would  be  with  sectional  men,  all  pledged  to  make  a  com 
mon  cause  against  the  South,  with  a  Congress  backing  up  his 
Administration,  such  as  the  present  House,  who  conceive  no 
measure  too  unconstitutional,  too  revolutionary,  too  disgraceful, 
to  meet  their  sanction,  so  as  it  makes  war  upon  the  South,  the 
frightful  mien  of  disunion  forces  itself  on  them  as  far  the  prefer 
able  alternative  between  it  and  oppression  and  disgrace  in.  the 
Union.  They  would  then  still  be  mindful  of  its  past  glories,  the 
memories  of  its  great  statesmen,  the  heroic  deeds  of  valor  of  its 
noted  warriors,  and  prefer  rather  to  cut  short  its  existence  than 
blacken  those  brilliant  recollections  with  the  record  of  its  future 
disgrace."  This  is  a  type  of  the  feeling  that  prevailed  in  the 
South  generally,  in  opposition  to  the  Eepublican  party. 

And  in  the  Republican  party  there  was  also  a  spirit  of  intol 
erance  and  disunion.  Mr.  HORACE  GREELEY  declared  :  "  I  have 
no  doubt  but  the  Free  and  the  Slave  States  ought  to  be  sepa 
rated  *  *  The  Union  is  not  worth  supporting  in  connection 
with  the  South."  Mr.  E.  P.  HURLBURT,  a  lawyer  in  Herkimer, 
New  York,  made  the  following  declaration  :  "  Rather  than  ad 
mit  another  slave  State  into  the  Confederacy,  I  would  dissolve 
it.  Rather  than  endure  the  curse  of  such  another  four  years' 
governmental  infamy  as  PIERCE,  DOUGLAS,  and  Co.  have  inflicted 
on  us,  I  would  dissolve  it,  so  help  me  Heaven."  Mr.  G.  "W. 
JULIEN,  who  had  been  a  member  of  Congress  from  Indiana,  in 
a  speech  made  the  following  declaration  on  behalf  of  the  Re 
publican  party :  "  I  tell  you  we  are  a  sectional  party.  It  is 
not  alone  a  fight  between  the  North  and  the  South  ;  it  is  a  fight 
between  freedom  and  slavery  ;  between  God  and  the  Devil ; 
between  heaven  and  hell."  [Loud  applause.]  A.  P.  BURLIN- 
GAME,  member  from  Mass.,  said  :  "  When  we  shall  have  elected  a 
President,  as  we  will,  who  will  not  be  the  President  of  a  party, 
nor  of  a  section,  but  the  tribune  of  the  people,  and  after  we 
have  exterminated  a  few  more  miserable  doughfaces  from  the 


THE   DEED    SCOTT   DECISION.  191 

North,  then  if  the  slave  Senate  will  not  give  way,  we  will 
grind  it  between  the  upper  and  nether  mill-stone  of  our  power." 
SIMON  BKOWN,  ex-Lieutenant-Governor  of  Massachusetts,  said : 
"  The  object  to  be  accomplished  is  this,  for  the  Free  States  to 
take  possession  of  the  Government."  TRUMAN  SMITH,  ex-Senator 
of  Connecticut,  declared :  "  Should  Mr.  BUCHANAN  be  elected,  it 
may  be  written  down  as  certain  that,  within  two  years  from  the 
fourth  of  March  next,  Kansas  will  be  delivered  up  to  the  Mo- 
lochs  of  slavery.  She  will  be  brought  in  as  a  Slave  State." 

These  extracts  show  the  state  of  feeling  in  both  sections  of 
the  country.  Extensively  at  the  South  there  was  a  determina 
tion  to  secede  from  the  Union  for  the  reasons  stated  by  Mr. 
BUENETT,  in  case  Mr.  FEEMOST  should  be  elected  President. 


THE   DEED   SCOTT   DECISION. 

Just  after  President  BUCHANAN'S  inauguration,  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  made  the  famous  decision  in  the  case 
of  DEED  SCOTT,  which  seemed  to  settle  certain  political  questions 
which  had  long  been  pending  in  the  public  mind.  In  the  act  of 
Congress,  by  which  Kansas  and  Nebraska  became  Territories,  the 
slavery  restriction  which  applied  to  all  territory  north  of  36°  30' 
was  repealed.  The  scope  and  effect  of  the  language  of  repeal 
were  not  left  in  doubt.  It  was  declared  in  terms  to  be  "  the  true 
intent  and  meaning  of  this  act,  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any 
Territory  or  State,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the 
people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  own  in 
stitutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States." 

DEED  SCOTT,  in  the  year  1854-,  was  a  negro  slave  belonging 
to  Dr.  EMEESON,  who  was  a  surgeon  in  the  army  of  the  United 
States.  In  that  year,  Dr.  EMEESON  took  the  said  Scott  to  the 
military  post  at  Rock  Island  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  held 
him  there  as  a  slave  until  April  or  May,  1856.  At  the  time  last 
mentioned,  said  Dr.  EMEESON  removed  to  the  military  post  at 
Fort  Snellirig,  situated  on  the  west  bank  of  the  Mississippi 
River,  in  the  Territory  known  as  Upper  Louisiana,  acquired  by 
the  United  States  from  France,  and  situated  north  of  the  lati- 


192  THE   SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

tude  of  36°  30'  north,  and  north  of  the  State  of  Missouri.  Dr. 
EMERSON  held  the  plaintiff,  DRED  SCOTT,  in  slavery  until  the 
year  1858.  The  court  decided  that  said  DRED  SCOTT  did  not  ob 
tain  title  to  his  liberty  from  the  fact  that  his  master  took  him 
first  from  Missouri  to  Illinois,  where  negro  slavery  does  not  ex 
ist  by  law,  and  next  to  the  territory  north  of  36°  30',  where,  by 
the  Missouri  Compromise,  slavery  was  prohibited. 

In  deciding  this  case  upon    certain   principles,  those  prin 
ciples  had  to  be  examined  and  settled. 

1.  It  was  decided  that  a  free  negro  of  the  African  race, 
whose  ancestors  were  brought  to  this  country  and  sold  as  slaves, 
is  not  a  "  citizen  "  within  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States. 

2.  It  was  decided  that  the  clauses  in  the  Constitution  which 
point  to  this  race,  treat  them  as  persons  whom  it  was  lawful  to 
deal  in  as  articles  of  property,  and  to  hold  as  slaves. 

3.  It  was  decided  that  since  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  no  State  can  by  any  subsequent  law  make 
a  foreigner  or  any  other  description  of  persons  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  nor  entitle  them  to  the  rights  and  privileges  se 
cured  to  citizens  by  that  instrument. 

4.  The  change  in  public  opinion  and  feeling  in  relation  to 
the  African  race,  which  has  taken  place  since  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution,  cannot  change  its  construction  and  meaning, 
and  it  must  be  construed  and  administered  now,  according  to 
its   true   meaning   and   intentions,   when   it   was  framed   and 
adopted. 

5.  The  clause  in  the  Constitution  authorizing  Congress  to 
make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  for  the  government  of 
the  territory  and  other  property  of  the  United  States,  applies 
only  to  territory  within  the  chartered  limits  of  some  one  of  the 
States  when  they  were  colonies  of  Great  Britain,  and  which 
was  surrendered  by  the  British  Government  to  the  old  Confed 
eration  of  States,  in  the  Treaty  of  peace.     It  does  not  apply  to 
territory  acquired  by  the  present  Federal  Government,  by  treaty 
or  conquest  from  a  foreign  nation. 

6.  During  the  time  it  remains  a  territory,  Congress  may  legis 
late  over  it  within  the  scope  of  its  constitutional  powers  in  re 
lation  to  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  may  establish  a  Ter- 


193 

ritorial  Government,  and  the  form  of  this  local  government 
must  be  regulated  by  the  discretion  of  Congress,  but  with 
powers  not  exceeding  those  which  Congress  itself,  by  the  Con 
stitution,  is  authorized  to  exercise  over  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  in  respect  to  their  rights  of  persons  or  rights  of  property. 

7.  The  territory  thus  acquired,  is  acquired  by  the  people  of 
the  United  States  for  their  common  and  equal  benefit,  through 
their  agent  or  trustee,  the  Federal  Government ;  Congress  can 
exercise  no  power  over  the  rights  of  persons  or  property  of  a 
citizen  in  the  Territory,  which  is  prohibited  by  the  Constitution. 
The  Government  and  the  citizens  both  enter  it  with  their  re 
spective  rights  defined  and  limited  by  the  Constitution. 

8.  Congress  has  no  right  to  prohibit  the  citizens  of  any  par 
ticular  State  or  States  from  taking  up  their  home  there,  while 
it  permits  citizens  of  other  States  to  do  so.     Nor  has  it  a  right 
to  give  privileges  to  one  class  of  citizens  which  it  refuses  to  do 
to  another.     The  territory  is  acquired  for  their  equal  and  com 
mon  benefit,  and  if  open  to  any,  it  must  be  open  to  all  upon 
equal  and  the  same  terms. 

9.  Every  citizen  has  a  right  to  take  with  him  into  the  terri 
tory,  any  article  of  property  which  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  recognizes  as  property. 

10.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  recognizes  slaves 
as  property,  and  pledges  the  General  Government  to  protect  it. 
And  Congress  cannot  exercise  any  more  authority  over  property 
of  that  description,  than  it  may  constitutionally  exercise  over 
property  of  any  other  kind. 

11.  The  act  of  Congress,  therefore,  prohibiting  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States  from  taking  with  him  his  slaves  when  he  re 
moves  to  the  territory  in  question  to  reside,  is  an  exercise  of 
authority  over  private  property  which  is  not  warranted  by  the 
Constitution  ;  and  the  removal  of  the  plaintiff  by  his  owner  to 
that  territory  gave  him  no  title  to  freedom. 


After  the  nomination  for  Speaker  in  the  House  of  Represent 
atives  for  the  36th  Congress,  on  Dec.  5,  1859,  Mr.  CLAKK, 
member  from  Missouri,  offered  the  following  resolution : 


194  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

"  Whereas  certain  members  of  this  House,  now  in  nomination 
for  Speaker,  did  endorse  and  recommend  the  book  hereinafter 
mentioned, 

"  Resolved^  That  the  doctrines  and  sentiments  of  a  certain 
book,  called  '  The  impending  crisis  of  the  South — How  to  meet 
it?  purporting  to  have  been  written  by  one  HINTON  EOWAN 
HELPER,  are  insurrectionary  and  hostile  to  the  domestic  peace  and 
tranquillity  of  the  country,  and  that  no  member  of  this  House, 
who  has  endorsed  and  recommended  it,  or  the  compend  from  it, 
is  fit  to  be  Speaker  of  this  House." 

The  design  of  the  book  was  to  hasten  the  crisis  which  it  pre 
dicts  as  "  impending,"  by  detailing  the  wretchedness  of  the 
Slave  States  ;  "  the  aim  of  the  revolution  "  desired ;  "  the  stupid 
masses  in  the  South,"  who  are  described  as  the  "  white  victims" 
of  slavery  ;  the  results  as  the  "  sum  of  all  villanies,"  as  slavery 
is  described  to  be ;  the  dependence  of  the  South  on  the  North 
for  the  necessary  or  the  convenient  articles  of  life ;  with  "  a 
revolutionary  appeal  to  Southern  non-slaveholders ; "  with 
the  declaration  that  "  the  North  must  seize  the  riches  of  the 
South,"  and  "  that  the  revolution  must  free  the  slaves ; "  and 
that  the  North  is  too  scrupulous  ;  that  the  revolution  must  take 
place,  "  peaceably  if  we  can,  forcibly  if  we  must." 

"  The  'banner  to  stand  or  die  ~by.  Inscribed  on  the  banner 
which  we  herewith  unfurl  to  the  world,  with  the  fixed  deter 
mination  to  stand  by  it  or  die  by  it,  unless  one  of  more  virtuous 
efficacy  shall  be  presented,  are  the  mottoes  which  in  substance 
embody  the  principles,  as  we  conceive,  that  should  govern  us  in 
our  patriotic  warfare  against  the  most  subtle  and  insidious  foe 
that  ever  menaced  the  inalienable  rights,  and  liberties,  and  dear 
est  interests  of  America." 

"  1.  Thorough  organization  and  independent  political  action 
on  the  part  of  the  non-slaveholding  whites  at  the  South. 

"  2.  Ineligibility  of  pro-slavery  slaveholders  ;  never  another 
vote  to  any  one  who  advocates  the  retention  and  perpetuation 
of  human  slavery. 

"  3.  No  co-operation  with  pro-slavery  ;  no  fellowship  with 
them  in  religion  ;  no  affiliation  with  them  in  society. 

"  4.  No  patronage  to  pro-slavery  merchants  ;  no  guestship  in 
pro-slavery  hotels  ;  no  fees  to  pro-slavery  lawyers  ;  no  employ- 


HELPER'S  BOOK.  195 

ment  of  pro-slavery  physicians ;  no  audience  to  pro-slavery 
parsons. 

"  5.  No  more  hiring  of  slaves  by  non-slaveholders. 

"  6.  Abrupt  discontinuance  of  subscription  to  pro-slavery 
newspapers. 

"  7.  The  greatest  possible  encouragement  to  free  white  labor." 

These  are  portions  of  the  extracts  from  HELPER'S  book, 
which,  at  the  request  of  the  mover,  were  read  by  the  clerk  of 
the  House.  Portions  omitted  are  more  outrageously  bitter  and 
insulting  than  the  portions  quoted. 

Mr.  CLAKK,  the  mover  of  the  resolution,  after  the  reading 
of  the  extracts,  proceeded  to  say  :  "  I  have  had  that  document 
read,  in  order  that  the  country,  as  well,  as  this  body,  might  be 
informed  of  the  position  held  by  certain  gentlemen  of  the  Re 
publican  party,  and  especially  by  those  who  have  been  recom 
mended  for  the  Speakership  of  this  House.  The  extracts  which 
have  been  read,  are,  in  substance,  true  extracts  from  the  book 
itself,  w^hich  is  in  the  House.  Those  extracts  have  been  exam 
ined  and  marked.  It  appears  by  those  extracts  that  nearly  all 
the  Republican  members  of  the  last  Congress,  and  certain  mem 
bers  of  the  present,  recommended  certain  things  to  the  non- 
slaveholders  of  the  South  ;  and  among  them,  non-fellowship 
either  socially  or  politically,  with  slaveholders.  If  such  be  the 
purpose  of  the  gentlemen  of  this  House  who  signed  that  paper, 
let  me  ask,  has  it  indeed  come  to  this,  that  gentlemen  of  the 
North  who  live  under  institutions  secured  to  them  by  the  Con 
stitution  of  their  country,  which  institutions  we  have  never  at 
tempted  to  invade  ;  that  gentlemen  living  in  a  bond  of  union, 
and  under  a  Constitution  that  cost  so  much  blood  and  so  much 
treasure,  and  under  which,  by  the  co-operation  of  both  North 
and  South,  our  country  has  grown  to  its  present  strength  and 
importance — has  it  come  to  this,  that  they  have  got  their  own 
consent,  and  expect  the  country  will  agree  to  it,  to  advise  those 
of  the  South  who  do  not  happen  to  own  slaves,  to  rise  in  rebel 
lion  and  destroy  the  slave  interest,  part  by  non-intercourse  in 
religion,  or  socially  or  politically ;  and  then  by  advising  them 
not  to  wait  to  strike  the  blow  until  their  arms  are  powerless, 
but  to  exterminate  the  odious  institution,  peaceably  if  they  can, 
forcibly  if  they  must  ?  Such  are  the  directions  recommended 


196  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

by  the  paper  which  was  signed  by  at  least  two  members  of  this 
House,  who  have  been  recommended  by  the  Republicans  for 
the  Speakership.  *  * 

"  Sir :  Do  these  gentlemen  suppose  that  slaveholders  who 
have  won  the  confidence  of  their  constituents,  and  who  have 
been  sent  here  to  assist  in  making  laws  and  preserving  the  Con 
stitution,  and  keeping  the  Government  intact,  feel  themselves 
honored  by  their  association  ?  If  they  do,  they  are  greatly  de 
ceived.  We  have  been  on  terms  of  personal  intimacy  with 
them.  Every  gentleman  in  this  House  who  knows  me,  knows 
that  my  intercourse  with  them  has  been  marked  with  the  ut 
most  urbanity.  I  have  met  Representatives  in  this  Hall  coming 
from  all  parts  of  the  country,  as  my  compeers  in  every  relation 
in  life.  But  can  I  continue  to  do  so,  except  gentlemen  disclaim 
having  advised  my  constituents — half  of  whom  are  non-slave 
holders,  to  have  no  intercourse  with  me  ;  not  to  visit  the  church 
where  I  worship ;  to  strike  down  and  ostracize  slaveholding 
ministers  ;  to  abandon  hotels  where  there  are  slave  waiters  ;  to 
discountenance  patronage  to  newspapers  that  are  conducted  by 
slaveholders  ?  If  they  expect  to  play  this  game,  the  sooner  it 
is  avowed  the  better.  *  * 

"  These  gentlemen  come  in  and  say  that  the  riches  of  the 
South  are  neglected  by  the  bad  management  of  the  South ; 
that  the  accursed  plague  of  slavery  does  it ;  and,  therefore,  that 
the  non-slaveholders  of  the  South  should  rise  in  their  majesty — 
peaceably  if  they  can,  forcibly  if  they  must — take  their  arms, 
drive  out  the  plague  of  slavery,  take  possession  of  the  country, 
and  dedicate  it  to  freedom. 

"  That  is  the  sentiment  of  the  book  which  those  gentlemen 
recommend  to  have  circulated  gratuitously  all  over  the  South. 
Are  such  men  fit  to  preside  over  the  destinies  of  our  common 
country  ? " 

In  this  book  occurs  the  following  paragraph  :  "  This  is  the 
outline  of  our  scheme  for  the  obliteration  of  slavery  in  the 
Southern  States.  Let  it  be  acted  upon  with  due  promptitude, 
and  as  certain  as  truth  is  mightier  than  error,  fifteen  years  will 
not  elapse  before  every  foot  of  territory  from  the  mouth  of  the 
Delaware  to  the  Eio  Grande  will  glitter  with  the  jewels  of  free 
dom.'7 


THE   JOHN    BROWN    INVASION.  197 

There  was  a  subscription  set  on  foot  in  the  city  of  New  York 
for  the  gratuitous  distribution  of  one  hundred  thousand  copies. 
To  the  fund'  thus  raised,  it  was  said  that  the  Governor  of  New 
York  contributed  one  hundred  dollars. 

Besides  the  sixty-eight  members  of  Congress  who  recom 
mended  HELPER'S  book,  Senator  WADE  of  Ohio  said  :  "  I  had 
looked  over  the  book,  and  saw  nothing  objectionable."  Senator 
Sewarct  also  spoke  favorably  of  it. 

A  portion  of  a  pamphlet  was  read,  Dec.  20,  1859,  at  the  re 
quest  of  Mr.  VALLANDIGHAM,  "  which  was  extensively  circulated 
in  the  Northern,  Southern,  and  Western  States  of  this  Union, 
and  which  contains  the  plan  of  associations  to  be  formed  for  the 
purpose  of  carrying  on  hostilities  against  a  portion  of  this  Con 
federacy."  After  certain  annunciation  of  principles,  and  after 
certain  preliminaries,  it  was  proposed  "  to  land  military  forces 
in  the  Southern  States,  who  shall  raise  the  standard  of  freedom, 
and  call  the  slaves  to  it,  and  such  free  persons  as  may  be  will 
ing  to  join  it. 

"  Our  plan  is  to  make  war  openly  or  secretly  as  circum 
stances  may  dictate,  upon  the  property  of  the  slaveholders  and 
their  abettors,  not  for  its  destruction,  if  that  can  be  easily 
avoided,  but  to  convert  it  to  the  use  of  the  slaves.  If  it  cannot 
thus  be  converted,  we  advise  its  destruction.  Teach  the  slaves 
to  burn  their  masters1  buildings,  to  kill  their  cattle  and  hogs,  to 
conceal  and  destroy  farming  utensils,  to  abandon  labor  in  seed 
time  and  harvest,  and  let  the  crops  perish.  Make  slave  labor 
unprofitable  in  this  way  if  it  can  be  done  in  no  other. 

"  To  make  slaveholders  objects  of  derision  and  contempt  by 
flogging  them  whenever  they  shall  be  guilty  of  flogging  their 
slaves." 

This  plan  JOHN  BROWN  attempted  to  carry  into  practice. 

Mr.  SHERMAN,  the  candidate  for  the  Speakership,  and  against 
whose  election  Mr.  CLARK'S  resolution  was  introduced,  as  one 
of  the  signers  of  the  recommendation  of  HELPER'S  book,  was  de 
feated. 

THE   JOHN   BROWN   INVASION. 

JOHN  BROWN,  in  the  autumn  of  1859,  with  twenty- three 
others,  obtained  forcible  possession  of  the  armory  at  Harper's 


198  THE    SECTIONAL  CONTROVERSY. 

Ferry,  Virginia.  In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  Mr. 
MASON,  Senator  from  Virginia,  brought  forward  a  resolution  to 
appoint  a  committee  to  investigate  the  facts  in  the  case.  This 
resolution  at  its  introduction  had  to  encounter  an  amendment 
offered  by  Mr.  TRUMBULL,  of  Illinois,  designed,  it  was  asserted, 
to  embarrass  the  action  of  the  Senate  in  the  matter.  It  also 
had  to  encounter  the  argument  and  ridicule  of  Senator  HALE, 
in  the  same  body. 

Mr.  HALE,  of  New  Hampshire,  December  6  :  "  I  am  free  to 
Bay,  sir,  that  while  1  desire  now,  as  I  have  always  desired,  this 
Union  may  be  perpetual,  I  confess  I  do  see  danger  to  it.  I  do 
not  see  danger  from  any  thing  we  are  doing  in  the  Free  States, 
not  the  slightest ;  but  I  do  see  danger  to  this  Union  from  the 
continued  obloquy,  reproach,  and  crimination  which  is  heaped 
upon  the  people  of  the  Free  States,  every  time  there  is  any 
thing  calling  attention  to  the  subject  in  the  South.  *  * 

"  I  do  not  see,  for  myself,  how  Southern  gentlemen  can  con 
sent  to  live  in  a  Union,  if  they  believe  that  those  who  are  asso 
ciated  with  them  are  the  characters  wrhich  the  public  press  rep 
resent  us  to  be ;  if  we  are  so  utterly  false  not  only  to  the  oaths 
that  we  have  taken  to  support  the  Constitution,  but  to  the 
moral  obligations  which  ought  to  bind  us  as  patriots  and  Chris 
tians.  If  the  sentiment,  that  we  are  so  utterly  wanting  in  all 
those  qualities  of  character,  is  to  be  continually  and  eternally 
iterated  and  re-iterated  from  one  of  the  sections  of  the  country, 
where  these  transactions  may  take  place,  to  the  other,  there  will 
be  a  feeling  generated  which  will  be  fatal  to  the  Union." 

Mr.  HUNTER,  of  Virginia,  on  the  same  day  spoke  as  follows  : 
"  Mr.  President,  I  rise  to  express  my  surprise  at  the  manner  in 
which  the  resolution  offered  by  my  colleague  has  been  received 
— a  resolution  temperate,  proper,  and  made  essentially  neces 
sary  by  circumstances  of  recent  occurrence.  I  had  presumed 
that  no  obstacle  would  be  thrown  in  the  way,  bat  that  Senators 
on  all  sides  of  the  House  would  agree  to  go  into  the  inquiry. 

"  It  is  known  to  all  that  a  most  atrocious  outrage  has  been 
committed  upon  the  State  which  I  have  the  honor  in  part  to 
represent ;  that  the  people  of  a  town  reposing  in  the  hours  of 
night,  in  all  the  confidence  of  peace  and  conscious  innocence  of 
all  purposes  of  wrong  to  mankind,  were  suddenly  invaded,  and 


THE   JOHN    BROWN    INVASION.  199 

attacked  by  a  band  of  armed  men  from  non-slaveholding  States  ; 
that  unarmed  men  were  shot  down  in  the  streets ;  that  murders 
were  committed ;  that  an  attempt  was  openly  made,  not  only  to 
subvert  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  but  the  Constitu 
tion  of  Virginia  ;  that  men  were  seized  and  dragged  from  their 
habitations  at  night,  and  that  attempts  were  made  to  excite  ser 
vile  insurrection  and  civil  war  in  its  most  horrid  form.  It  is 
known  too,  sir,  that  complicity  has  been  charged,  not  on  the 
part  of  the  South,  but  by  individuals  professing  to  have  been 
in  the  employment  of  persons  and  associations  in  the  non-slave- 
holding  States  ;  and  it  is  also  known  to  those  who  come  from 
the  South,  at  least,  that  the  public  mind  has  been  startled,  not 
so  much  by  the  foray  of  BKOWN  and  his  twenty-three  men,  as 
by  the  open  sympathy  and  approbation  which  have  been  man 
ifested  by  portions  of  the  North  in  regard  to  that  attempt,  and 
the  apparent  indifference  with  which  it  has  been  treated  by 
those  who,  we  had  a  right  to  hope,  would  have  been  more  con 
servative  in  their  feelings  and  actions  upon  such  a  subject. 

"  Sir,  I  had  supposed  that  such  indecent  exhibitions  of  sym 
pathy  for  crime  would  have  been  frowned  down  by  an  outburst 
of  public  opinion  on  the  part  of  those  in  the  midst  of  whom 
such  things  were  perpetrated.  *  * 

u  And  now,  sir,  wrhen  my  colleague  proposes,  in  temperate 
language,  merely  to  inquire  into  the  facts  of  the  case,  and  to 
raise  a  committee  to  see  whether  any  thing  can  be  done  by 
the  authorities  of  this  Government  to  prevent  the  repetition  of 
such  outrages,  how  is  it  met  ?  The  Senator  from  Illinois  pro 
poses  to  stifle  such  inquiry  by  making  a  party  issue,  and  turn 
ing  the  whole  subject  into  a  matter  of  mere  partisan  warfare 
and  discussion.  *  * 

"  Still  less  had  we  supposed  that  such  a  question  was  to 
be  met  with  the  levity  of  the  Senator  from  New  Hampshire. 
Why,  sir,  upon  such  occasions  as  these,  upon  such  occasions  as 
this — I  will  not  say  as  these,  for  it  has  no  parallel  in  the  history 
of  our  Government — to  see  such  a  subject  treated  with  the  lev 
ity  in  which  he  is  disposed  to  deal  with  it,  sounds  to  me,  at 
least,  like  the  laugh  of  the  inebriate  or  the  insensate  in  the 
chamber  of  death  itself.  I  tell  him,  sir,  that  much  depends 
upon  what'  is  the  real  state  of  Northern  feeling  in  regard  to 


200  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

these  matters.  We  know  that  we  can  defend  ourselves  against 
such  outrages  as  this ;  against  the  forays  of  men  who  may  at 
tempt  to  get  up  servile  war  among  us  ;  we  hope  we  can  defend 
ourselves  against  all  the  hazards  to  which  we  may  probably  be 
exposed ;  but  it  becomes  a  much  graver  question  to  say,  how 
we  are  to  deal  with  the  subject  if  we  become  convinced  that 
such  attempts  find  support  not  only  in  the  sympathy  of  the 
great  mass  of  the  North,  but  in  contributions  that  may  be  act 
ually  raised  for  their  assistance." 

Mr.  DOUGLAS,  Jan.  23,  1860  :  "  Without  stopping  to  adduce 
evidence  in  detail,  I  have  no  hesitation  in  expressing  my  firm 
and  deliberate  conviction  that  the  Harper's  Ferry  crime  was 
the  matured,  logical,  inevitable  result  of  the  doctrines  .and 
teachings  of  the  Republican  party,  explained  and  enforced  in 
their  platform,  their  partisan  presses,  their  pamphlets  and 
books,  and  especially  of  their  leaders  in  and  out  of  Congress.  * 

"  The  great  principle  that  underlies  the  organization  of  the 
Republican  party  is — violent,  irreconcilable,  eternal  warfare  upon 
the  institution  of  American  slavery,  with  a  view  to  its  ultimate 
extinction  throughout  the  land.  Sectional  war  is  to  be  waged 
until  the  cotton  fields  of  the  South  shall  be  cultivated  by  free 
labor,  or  the  rye  fields  of  New  York  and  Massachusetts  shall  be 
cultivated  by  slave  labor." 

SYMPATHY   WITH   BROWN. 

The  admirers  of  JOHN  BROWN  made  a  distinction  between 
his  acts  and  his  character,  the  means  he  employed  and  the  end 
which  he  aimed  at.  The  acts  and  the  means  they  condemned, 
while  his  character  and  the  end  he  aimed  to  accomplish  they 
seemed  to  approve  and  admire.  It  appears  that  he  spent  some 
years  in  Kansas,  where,  being  possessed  by  an  evil  spirit,  he 
perpetrated  acts  which  were  denominated  murder,  theft,  and 
robbery.  "  It  cannot  be  disguised  that  the  Northern  heart  sym 
pathized  with  BROWN  and  his  fate  because  he  died  in  the  cause 
of  what  they  call  liberty."  On  the  day  of  his  death  bells  were 
tolled  in  many  places  ;  cannon  fired  ;  prayers  were  offered  for 
him  as  if  he  were  a  martyr ;  he  was  placed  in  the  same  category 
with  Paul  and  Silas,  for  whom  prayers  were  made  by  the 


PERSONAL    LIBERTY   BILLS.  201 

Church  ;  churches  were  draped  in  mourning  ;  a  motion  was 
made  in  the  Senate  of  Massachusetts,  "  that,  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  this  was  the  day  on  which  JOHN  BROWN  was  sentenced  to 
be  hanged,  the  Senate  do  now  adjourn."  The  motion  was  lost ; 
the  vote  being  8  to  11.  There  were  twenty  absentees,  who 
shirked  the  question.  There  was  also  a  strong  sympathy  in  the 
House  for  BEOWN,  though  that,  likewise,  by  a  large  majority 
refused  to  adjourn.  It  was  moved  in  the  House,  "  that  for  the 
great  respect  we  have  for  the  truthfulness  and  faith  that  JOHN 
BROWN  had  in  man  and  his  religion,  and  the  strong  sympathy 
for  the  love  of  liberty  (the  avowed  principle  of  Massachusetts) 
for  which  he  is  this  day  to  die,  this  House  do  now  adjourn." 
Massachusetts  elected,  as  governor,  a  man  who  presided  at  a 
meeting  assembled  to  express  sympathy  for  BROWN.  What  was 
true  of  the  general  sentiment  in  favor  of  BROWN  in  portions  of 
Massachusetts,  was  true  of  many  localities  elsewhere  in  the  Free 
States.  This  sectional  sympathy  at  the  North  increased  the 
sectional  jealousy  at  the  South. 

PERSONAL   LIBERTY   BILLS. 

The  effect  of  "  personal  liberty  bills,"  was  to  throw  obstruc 
tions  in  the  way  of  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  the  Constitu 
tion  for  the  restoration  of  fugitive  slaves  to  their  owners. 

States  which  prohibit  their  officers  and  citizens  from  aiding 
in  the  execution  of  the  fugitive  slave  laws  of  1793  and  1850  : 
Maine,  Massachusetts,  Pennsylvania,  New  York,  Yermont, 
Wisconsin,  New  Hampshire,  Connecticut,  Michigan,  New  Jer 
sey,  Rhode  Island. 

States  that  deny  all  public  edifices  in  aid  of  the  master: 
Maine,  Massachusetts,  Michigan,  Yermont,  Rhode  Island. 

States  that  provide  defence  for  the  fugitive  :  Maine,  Massa 
chusetts,  Pennsylvania,  Wisconsin,  Yermont,  New  York,  Mich 
igan. 

States  which  declare  the  fugitives  free,  if  "brought  "by  their 
masters  into  the  State  :  Maine,  Yermont,  New  Hampshire. 

State  that  declares  him  to  le  free  absolutely :  New  Hamp 
shire.  See  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the 

Legislature  of  Yirginia  in  1860. 


202  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

EXTRACT   FROM   A   PERSONAL   LIBERTY   BILL   OF   VERMONT. 

"  Every  person  who  may  have  been  held  as  a  slave,  who 
shall  come  or  who  may  be  brought  into  this  State,  with  the 
consent  of  his  or  her  alleged  master  or  mistress,  or  who  shall 
come  or  be  brought,  or  shall  ~be  in  this  State,  shall  be  free. 

"  Every  person  who  shall  hold,  or  attempt  to  hold,  in  this 
State  in  slavery  as  a  slave,  any  free  person,  in  any  form  or  for 
any  time,  however  short,  under  the  pretence  that  such  person 
is  or  has  been  a  slave,  shall,  on  conviction  thereof,  be  impris 
oned  in  the  State  prison  for  a  term  not  less  than  five  years,  nor 
more  than  twenty,  and  be  fined  not  less  than  $1,000,  nor  more 
than  $10,000." 

Mr.  WEBSTER,  in  his  seventh  of  March  speech,  spoke  as  fol 
lows  :  "  I  will  allude  to  other  grounds  of  complaint  of  the  South, 
and  especially  to  one  which,  in  my  opinion,  furnishes  just  foun 
dation  of  complaint,  and  that  is,  that  there  has  been  found  at 
the  North  among  individuals,  and  among  legislatures,  a  disin 
clination  to  perform  fully  their  constitutional  duties,  in  regard 
to  the  return  of  persons  bound  to  service,  who  have  escaped  into 
the  free  States.  In  that  respect  the  South,  in  my  judgment,  is 
right,  and  the  North  wrong.  Every  member  of  every  Northern 
legislature  is  bound  by  oath,  like  every  other  officer  in  the  coun 
try,  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  and  the 
article  of  the  Constitution  which  says  to  these  States,  that  they 
shall  deliver  up  fugitives  from  service,  is  as  binding  in  honor 
and  conscience  as  any  other  article." 

Mr.  WEBSTER,  in  his  speech  at  Capon  Springs,  Virginia,  in 
1851,  said :  "  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  and  repeat,  that  if  the 
Northern  States  refuse  wilfully  and  deliberately  to  carry  into 
effect  that  part  of  the  Constitution  which  respects  the  restora 
tion  of  fugitive  slaves,  the  South  would  no  longer  be  bound  to 
keep  the  compact.  A  bargain  broken  on  one  side,  is  broken  on 
all  sides." 

IS   SLAVERY   A   MERE   CREATURE  OF  LOCAL   LAW? 

Judge  STORY,  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
in  the  decision  in  the  Prigg  case,  declared  that  slavery  is  a  mere 
creature  of  local  law.  This  opinion  became  fashionable  at  the 


IS    SLAVERY    A   MEEE   CKEATCKE   OF    SOCIAL    LAW?  203 

North.  But  the  same  eminent  judge,  in  1827,  wrote  to  Lord 
STOWEL,  that  he  fully  concurred  with  him  in  his  decision,  in  which 
he  says  that  slavery  "  never  was  in  Antigua  the  creature  of  law, 
but  of  that  custom  which  operates  with  the  force  of  law."  Lord 
STOWEL,  in  that  decision,  in  effect  says,  that  "  the  slave  who 
goes  to  England  or  to  Massachusetts,  from  a  slave  State*  is  still  a 
slave,  that  he  is  still  his  master's  property ;  but  that  his  master 
has  lost  control  over  him,  not  by  reason  of  the  cessation  of  his 
property,  but  because  those  States  grant  no  remedy  by  which 
he  can  exercise  his  control."  An  invention  is  in  the  highest 
sense  the  property  of  the  inventor,  and  a  work,  of  its  author,  but 
their  rights  of  property  cannot  be  enforced  unless  there  are 
patent  laws  and  copyright  laws.  In  barbarous  countries,  the 
rights  of  property  exist,  though  they  cannot  be  enforced  by  law. 

Judge  McLEAN,  in  the  Prigg  case,  said :  "  But  the  inquiry 
is  reiterated,  Is  not  the  master  entitled  to  his  property  f  I  an 
swer  that  he  is.  His  right  is  guaranteed  ~by  the  Constitution: 
and  the  most  summary  means  are  found  for  its  enforcement  in 
the  act  of  Congress."  The  right  of  property  in  slaves  exists  un 
der  the  Constitution.  In  the  history  of  the  rights  of  property, 
it  appears  that  these  rights  have  existed  prior  to  any  written 
law,  and  were  protected  by  common  law.  "  The  current  sug 
gestion  that  slave  property  exists  but  by  local  law  is  no  more 
true  of  this  than  it  is  of  all  other  property.  In  fact,  the  Euro 
pean  socialists,  who  in  wild  radicalism  (including  the  Assigna 
tion  doctrine)  are  the  correspondents  of  the  American  abolition 
ists,  maintain  the  same  doctrine  as  to  all  property,  that  the 
Abolitionists  do  as  to  slave  property.  He  who  has  property, 
they  argue,  is  the  robber  of  him  who  has  not.  And  the  same 
precise  theory  of  attack  at  the  North  upon  the  slave  property 
of  the  South,  would,  if  carried  out  to  their  legitimate,  necessary, 
and  logical  consequences,  and  will,  if  successful  in  this,  their 
first  stage  of  action,  superinduce  attacks  on  all  property,  North 
and  South." — CALEB  CUSIIING. 

"  In  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain  formed  in  1782,  stipula 
tions  were  entered  into  that  prisoners  on  both  sides  shall  be  set 
at  liberty,  and  his  Britannic  Majesty  shall,  with  all  convenient 
speed,  and  without  causing  any  distinction  or  carrying  away 
any  negroes  or  other  property  of  the  American  inhabitants,  &c.," 


204  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

signed  by  RICHARD  OSWALD,  B.  FRANKLIN,  JOHN  JAY,  HENRY 
LAURENS.  Thus  the  two  nations  recognized  the  right  of  property 
in  negroes. 

In  the  treaty  of  1814,  there  is  a  similar  provision  in  regard 
to  "  slaves  and  other  property."  This  treaty  was  signed  by 
GAMBIER,  HENRY  COULBOURN,  WILLIAM  ADAMS,  JOHN  QUINCY 
ADAMS,  J.  A.  BAYARD,  HENRY  CLAY,  JONATHAN  RUSSELL,  AL 
BERT  GALLATEST.  If  such  men  could  thus  recognize  the  right 
of  property  in  slaves,  why  should  not  others  ? 

"  It  is  historically  well  known,  that  the  object  of  this  clause 
in  the  Constitution  relating  to  persons  owing  service  and  labor 
in  one  State  escaping  into  another,  was  to  secure  to  the  citizens 
of  the  slaveholding  States  the  complete  right  and  title  of  owner 
ship  in  their  slaves,  as  property  in  every  State  of  the  Union, 
into  which  they  might  escape  from  the  State  whence  they  were 
held  in  servitude." — Judge  STORY,  16  Peters'  Reports^  p.  540. 

NORTHERN   ABOLITION    AND   DISUNION    SENTIMENTS. 

Mr.  LINCOLN  addressed  a  speech  to  the  Republican  State 
Convention  assembled  in  Illinois  in  June,  1858,  of  which  the 
following  is  an  extract : 

"  In  my  opinion  it  (the  slavery  agitation)  will  not  cease 
until  a  crisis  shall  have  reached  and  passed.  A  house  divided 
against  itself  cannot  stand.  I  believe  this  Government  cannot 
endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do  not  expect 
the  house  to  fall,  but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided. 
It  will  become  all  one  thing,  or  all  the  other.  Either  the  op 
ponents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  place 
it  where  the  public  mind  will  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  a 
course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advocates  will  push  forward 
until  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States — old  as  well 
as  new,  North  as  well  as  South." 

In  his  Rochester  speech  in  1858,  Senator  SEWARD  tells  us 
"  that  the  States  must  all  become  free,  or  all  become  slave  ;  that 
the  South,  in  other  words,  must  conquer  and  subdue  the  North, 
or  the  North  must  triumph -over  the  South,  and  drive  slavery 
from  its  limits." 

"  It  is  an  irrepressible  conflict,"  he  says,  "  between  opposing 


NORTHERN    ABOLITION   AND   DISUNION    SENTIMENTS.  205 

and  ordinary  forces  ;  and  it  means  that  the  United  States 
must  all  become  either  entirely  a  slaveholding  nation,  or  entirely 
a  free  labor  nation.  Either  the  cotton  and  rice  fields  of  South 
Carolina,  and  the  sugar  plantations  of  Louisiana,  will  ultimately 
be  tilled  by  free  labor,  and  Charleston  and  New  Orleans  become 
marts  for  legitimate  merchandise  alone,  or  else  the  rye  fields 
and  wheat  fields  of  Massachusetts  and  New  York  must  again 
be  surrendered  by  them  to  slave  culture  and  to  the  production 
of  slaves,  and  Boston  and  New  York  become  once  more  markets 
for  trade  in  the  bodies  and  souls  of  men." 

"  Slavery  can  be  limited  to  its  present  bounds.  It  can  be 
ameliorated.  It  can  and  must  be  abolished,  and  you  and  I  can 
and  must  do  it." — Mr.  SEWARD  in  Ohio,  1848. 

Rev.  Mr.  WHEELOCK  addressed  a  large  congregation  in 
Dover,  New  Hampshire,  in  a  sermon,  of  which  the  following  is 
an  extract :  "  It  is  a  great  mistake  to  term  this  act  (BROWN'S) 
the  beginning  of  bloodshed  and  war.  Never  could  there  be  a 
greater  error.  "We  have  had  bloodshed  and  war  for  the  last  ten 
years.  The  campaign  began  on  the  7th  of  March,  1850.  The 
dissolution  of  the  Union  dates  from  that  day,  and  we  have  had 
no  constitution  since.  On  that  day  DANIEL  WEBSTER  was  put 
to  death — and  such  a  death  !  And  from  that  time  to  this,  there 
has  not  been  a  month  that  has  not  seen  the  soil  of  freedom  in 
vaded  and  attacked,  our  citizens  kidnapped,  imprisoned,  and 
shot,  or  driven  by  thousands  into  Canada." 

Gov.  CHASE  said  to  "W.  D.  CHADWICK  GLOVER,  Dec.  27, 1859  : 
"  I  do  not  wish  to  have  the  slave  emancipated  because  I  love 
him,  but  because  I  hate  his  master.  I  hate  slavery.  I  hate  a 
man  that  will  own  a  slave." 

"  There  is  really  no  union  now  between  the  North  and  the 
South ;  and  he  believed  no  two  nations  on  the  earth  entertain 
feelings  of  more  bitter  rancor  towards  each  other,  than  these 
two  nations  of  the  Republic.  The  only  salvation,  therefore,  of 
the  Union  is  to  be  found  in  dividing  it  entirely  from  the  taint 
of  slavery." — Senator  WADE,  of  Ohio,  in  Maine. 

"  I  have  read  the  Impending  Crisis  of  the  South  with  great 
attention.  It  seems  to  me  a  work  of  great  merit ;  rich  yet  ac 
curate  in  statistical  information,  and  logical  in  analysis." — 
WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD,  1859. 


206  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

"  The  time  is  fast  approaching  when  the  cry  will  become  too 
overpowering  to  resist.  Rather  than  tolerate  national  slavery 
as  it  now  exists,  let  the  Union  be  demolished  at  once,  and  then 
the  sin  of  slavery  will  rest  where  it  belongs." — New  York  Trib 
une. 

"  I  have  no  doubt  but  the  free  and  slave  States  ought  to  be 
separated.  *  *  *  The  Union  is  not  worth  supporting  in 
connection  with  the  South." — Idem. 

A  leading  member  of  the  Convention  that  nominated  Mr. 
FKEMONT,  namely,  JAMES  WATSON  WEBB,  uttered  the  following 
as  the  sentiment  of  the  people :  "  They  (the  people)  ask  us  to 
give  them  a  nomination  which,  when  fairly  put  before  the 
people,  will  unite  public  sentiment,  and  through  the  ballot-box 
will  restrain  and  repel  the  pro-slavery  extension,  and  this  ag 
gression  of  the  slaveocracy.  What  else  are  they  doing  ?  They 
tell  you  that  they  are  willing  to  abide  by  the  ballot-box,  and 
willing  to  make  that  the  last  appeal.  If  we  fail  there,  what 
then  f  We  will  drive  it  back  sword  in  hand,  so  help  me,  God  ! 
Believing  them  to  le  right,  I  am  with  them."  "  This  sentiment 
was  loudly  cheered  by  the  Convention."  In  July,  1860,  he  de 
clared  :  "  If  a  Southern  State  should  attempt  to  resist,  she  will 
be  made  to  submit,  and  bear  herself  with  deference  and  respect 
thereafter  to  those  who  are  morally  and  socially  her  equals,  and 
politically  and  physically  her  superiors,  and  when  provoked  to 
demonstrate  it,  if  need  be,  her  masters." 

On  page  648  of  the  Congressional  Globe,  of  the  first  Session 
of  the  thirty-third  Congress,  Mr.  GIDDINGS,  Member  of  Congress 
from  Ohio,  is  reported  to  have  spoken  as  follows : 

"  When  the  contest  shall  come  ;  when  the  thunder  shall  roll, 
and  the  lightning  flash  ;  when  the  slaves  shall  rise  in  the  South  ; 
when,  in  emulation  of  the  Cuban  bondmen,  the  Southern  slaves 
shall  feel  that  they  are  men ;  when  they  shall  feel  the  stirring 
emotions  of  immortality,  and  shall  recognize  the  stirring  truth 
that  they  are  men,  and  entitled  to  the  rights  that  God  has  be 
stowed  upon  them  ;  when  the  slaves  shall  feel  that,  and  when 
masters  shall  turn  pale  and  tremble,  when  their  dwellings  shall 
smoke,  and  dismay  shall  sit  on  each  countenance,  then,  sir,  I  do 
not  say,  we  shall  laugh  at  your  calamity  and  mock  when  your 
fear  cometh  ;  but  I  do  say,  that  when  that  time  shall  come,  the 


NORTHERN    ABOLITION   AND   DISUNION    SENTIMENTS  207 

lovers  of  our  race  will  stand  forth  and  exert  the  legitimate 
powers  of  this  Government  for  freedom.  We  shall  then  have 
constitutional  power  to  act  for  the  good  of  our  country,  and  do 
justice  to  the  slave.  Then  will  we  strike  off  the  shackles  from 
the  limbs  of  the  slave.  Then  will  be  a  period  when  this  Gov 
ernment  will  have  power  to  act  between  slavery  and  freedom, 
and  when  it  can  make  peace  by  giving  freedom  to  the  slaves. 
And  let  me  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  time  hastens.  It  is 
rolling  forward.  The  President  is  exerting  a  power  that  will 
hasten  it,  though  not  intended  by  him.  I  hail  it  as  I  do  the 
dawn  of  that  political  and  moral  millennium,  which  I  am  well 
assured  will  come  on  the  earth." 

"  It  is  written  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  that 
five  slaves  shall  count  equal  to  three  freemen,  as  a  basis  of  rep 
resentation,  and  it  is  written  also,  in  violation  of  the  Divine 
Law,  that  we  shall  surrender  the  fugitive  slave  who  takes  refuge 
at  our  fireside  from  his  relentless  pursuer." — Senator  SEWAED  in 
Ohio,  1848. 

In  an  address  delivered  in  Boston,  1855,  Mr.  BURLINGAME, 
Member  of  Congress,  said  :  "  If  asked  to  state  particularly  what 
he  would  do,  he  would  answer,  first,  repeal  the  Nebraska  bill ; 
second,  repeal  the  fugitive  slave  law  ;  third,  abolish  slavery  in 
the  District  of  Columbia ;  fourth,  abolish  the  internal  slave 
trade  ;  next,  he  would  declare  that  slavery  should  not  spread  one 
inch  in  the  Union  ;  he  would  then  put  the  Government  actually 
and  perpetually  on  the  side  of  freedom.  *  *  *  He  would 
have  judges  that  believed  in  a  higher  law;  an  anti-slavery 
Constitution,  an  anti-slavery  Bible,  and  an  anti-slavery  God. 
Having  thus  denationalized  slavery,  he  would  not  menace  it  in 
the  States  where  it  now  exists,  but  would  say  to  the  States,  It  is 
your  local  institution  ;  hug  it  to  your  bosom  until  it  destroys 
you.  But  he  would  say,  you  must  let  our  freedom  alone.  [Ap 
plause.].  If  you  but  touch  the  hem  of  her  garment  we  will 
trample  you  to  the  earth.  [Loud  applause.]  This  is  the  only 
condition  of  repose,  and  it  must  come  to  this." 

On  the  9th  of  June,  1841,  JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS  said  "  that, 
in  the  event  of  a  servile  war,  his  own  opinion  would  be,  that  if 
the  free  portion  of  people  of  this  Union  were  called  upon  to 
support  the  institutions  of  the  South  by  suppressing  the  slaves, 


208  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

and  a  servile  war  in  consequence  of  it,  in  that  case  he  would 
not  say  that  Congress  had  no  right  to  interfere  with  the  institu 
tions  of  the  South  ;  that  the  very  fact,  perhaps,  that  the  free  por 
tion  of  the  people  of  this  Union  were  called  to  sacrifice  their  blood 
and  their  treasure  for  the  purpose  of  suppressing  a  war  in  a  case 
in  which  a  most  distinguished  Southern  man,  the  author  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  had  declared  that  in  that  event 
the  Almighty  had  no  attribute  that  sided  writh  the  master,  he 
would  say,  that  if  the  free  portion  of  this  Union  were  called 
upon  to  expend  their  blood  and  their  treasure  to  support  that 
cause  which  had  the  curse  and  the  displeasure  of  the  Almighty 
upon  it,  he  would  say,  that  this  same  Congress  would  sanction 
an  expenditure  of  blood  and  treasure,  for  that  cause  itself  would 
come  within  the  constitutional  action  of  Congress,  and  there 
would  be  no  longer  any  pretension  that  Congress  had  not  the 
right  to  interfere  with  the  institutions  of  the  South,  inasmuch 
as  the  very  fact  that  the  people  of  the  free  portion  of  the  Union 
marching  to  the  support  of  the  masters  would  be  an  interference 
with  those  institutions ;  and  that  in  the  event  of  a  war  the  re 
sult  of  which  no  man  could  tell,  the  treaty -making  power  came 
to  be  equivalent  to  universal  emancipation." 

"  Mr.  IXGERSOLL,  Member  from  Pennsylvania,  interrupted 
Mr.  ADAMS  with  the  expression  of  the  deepest  indignation  of 
his  soul  at  the  utterance  of  such  a  doctrine." 

On  the  21st  of  February,  1843,  Mr.  DELLET,  of  Alabama, 
asked  Mr.  ADAMS  whether  he  understood  him  on  another  occa 
sion  to  say,  "  that  in  God's  good  time  the  abolition  of  slavery 
would  come,  and  let  it  come." 

Mr.  DELLET  asked  Mr.  ADAMS  if  he  understood  him. 

Mr.  ADAMS  nodded  assent,  and  said  with  great  earnestness, 
"  Let  it  come." 

Mr.  DELLET.  Yes,  let  it  come.  No  matter  what  the  con 
sequences,  let  it  come,  said  the  gentleman.  Let  it  come,  though 
women  and  children  should  be  slain,  though  blood  should  flow 
like  water,  though  the  Union  itself  be  destroyed,  though  Gov 
ernment  shall  be  broken  up.  No  matter  though  five  millions 
of  the  people  of  the  South  perish. 

Mr.  ADAMS,  (in  his  seat.)  "  Five  hundred  millions,  let  it 
come."  Was  this  a  mental  paroxysm,  or  habitual  feeling  ? 


CALEB   GUSHING   IN   BOSTON,    1859.  209 

Senator  HENRY  WILSON,  in  Boston,  Jan.  21,  1851 :  "  We 
shall  arrest  the  extension  of  slavery,  and  rescue  the  Government 
from  the  grasp  of  the  slave  power.  We  shall  blot  out  slavery 
in  the  National  Capitol.  We  shall  surround  the  slave  States 
with  a  cordon  of  free  States.  We  shall  then  appeal  to  the  hearts 
and  consciences  of  men,  and,  in  a  few  years,  notwithstanding 
the  immense  interests  of  mankind  connected  with  the  cause  of 
oppression,  we  shall  give  liberty  to  the  millions  in  bondage.  I 
trust  many  of  us  shall  live  to  see  the  chain  stricken  from  the 
limbs  of  the  last  bondman  in  the  Republic  !  But,  sir,  whenever 
that  day  shall  come,  living  or  dead,  no  man  connected  with  the 
anti-slavery  movement  will  be  dearer  to  enfranchised  millions, 
than  the  name  of  your  guest,  WILLIAM  LLOYD  GARRISON." 

CALEB   GUSHING   IN   BOSTON,    1859. 
! 

"  I  showed  you  how,  under  the  influence  of  their  malign 
teachings,  all  party  action,  North  and  South,  was  running  in  the 
channel  of  a  desperate  and  deplorable  sectionalism,  and  that, 
above  all,  here  in  Massachusetts,  all  the  sectional  influences 
dominant  in  this  State  were  founded  upon  the  single  emotion  of 
hate — ay,  hate  ;  treacherous,  ferocious  hate  of  our  fellow-citizens 
in  the  Southern  States.  [Applause,  and  cries  of  Good,  good.] 

"  Under  the  influence  of  this  monomania,  they  have  set  up 
in  this  Commonwealth  a  religion  of  hate — ay,  a  religion  of  hate 
and  of  blasphemy.  O  God !  that  such  things  are  in  this  our 
day  ! 

"  What  more,  gentlemen  ?  We  have  had  our  ears  filled  with 
alleged  sympathies  for  JOHN  BROWN  ;  of  apologies  for  his  act ; 
of  reproaches  against  the  persons  whom  he  was  endeavoring  to 
slaughter  in  cold  blood  ;  of  sneers  at  the  State  of  Virginia  ;  of 
ridicule  of  the  terror  of  the  unarmed  women  and  children  of 
Virginia.  I  say,  sympathy  for  all  this.  Gentlemen,  it  is  not 
sympathy  for  JOHN  BROWN.  It  is  another  form  of  the  mani 
festation  of  that  same  intense  and  ferocious  hatred  of  the  people 
of  the  South  which  animates  the  persons  of  whom  I  am  speak 
ing.  [Applause.]  Hatred  !  Hatred  !  Now  the  fact  has  been 
told  us,  that,  in  all  times,  hate  must  have  its  food  of  blood. 
How  long  are  the  people  of  Massachusetts  to  have  their  souls 


210  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

continually  perverted  with  these  preachings — ay,  pulpit  preach 
ings  of  hatred  ? " 


RELATIONS    OF   THE    STATES    TO   THE    GENERAL    GOVERNMENT. 

Senator  DAVIS,  of  Mississippi,  Feb.  2,  1860,  in  the  Senate, 
submitted  six  resolutions.  In  thej^r^,  he  speaks  of  the  action 
of  the  States  as  independent  sovereignties  in  forming  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States,  by  delegating  a  portion  of  their 
power  to  be  exercised  by  the  General  Government.  In  the 
second,  he  speaks  of  negro  slavery's  being  recognized  by  the 
Constitution.  In  the  third,  of  the  equality  of  the  States,  in  re 
spect  to  rights  in  the  Territories.  The  fourth  is  as  follows  : 

"  JZesolved,  That  neither  Congress  nor  a  territorial  legisla 
ture,  whether  by  direct  legislation,  or  by  legislation  of  an  indi 
rect  and  unfriendly  nature,  possess  the  power  to  annul  or  im 
pair  the  constitutional  right  of  any  citizen  of  the  United  States 
to  take  his  slave  property  into  the  common  territories ;  but  it 
is  the  duty  of  the  Federal  Government  there  to  afford  for  that, 
as  for  other  species  of  property,  the  needful  protection  ;  and  if 
experience  should,  at  any  time,  prove  that  the  judiciary  does 
not  possess  power  to  insure  adequate  protection,  it  will  become 
the  duty  of  Congress  to  supply  such  deficiency." 

In  theffth,  he  declares  that  when  a  territory  forms  its  con 
stitution,  the  people  can  then,  for  the  first  time,  have  power  to 
say  whether  slavery,  as  a  domestic  institution,  shall  be  main 
tained  or  prohibited  in  its  jurisdiction  ;  and  if  Congress  shall 
admit  them  as  a  State,  they  shall  be  received  into  the  Union 
either  with  or  without  slavery,  as  their  constitution  may  pre 
scribe,  at  the  time  of  admission. 

In  the  sixth,  he  speaks  of  the  opposition  made  by  the  States 
to  the  return  of  fugitive  slaves,  as  hostile  in  its  character,  and 
subversive  of  the  Constitution,  and  revolutionary  in  its  effect. 

The  South  insists  that  what  is  recognized  as  property  in  the 
States,  and  what  is  treated- as  property  in  the  Constitution,  and 
in  treaties  with  other  nations,  and  in  congressional  legislation, 
and  in  judicial  decisions,  shall  be  recognized  as  property  in  the 
territories,  and  protected  as  property. 

In  opposition  to  this  view,  the  Republican  party,  in  their 


POWER   OF   CONGRESS    OVER   TERRITORIES.  211 

platform,  Chicago,  1860,  has  the  following  declaration :  u  That 
the  new  dogma  that  the  Constitution,  of  its  own  force,  carries 
slavery  into  any  or  all  of  the  territories  of  the  United  States,  is 
a  dangerous  political  heresy,  at  variance  with  the  explicit  pro 
visions  of  that  instrument  itself,  with  cotemporaneous  exposi 
tion,  and  with  legislative  and  judicial  precedents,  is  revolution 
ary  in  its  tendency,  and  subversive  of  the  peace  and  harmony 
of  the  country." 

POWER   OF   CONGRESS   OVER   TERRITORIES. 
I 

As  heretofore  stated,  Northern  men  have  claimed  for  Con 
gress  the  power  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Territories,  on  the 
strength  of  that  clause  in  the  Constitution  which  declares  that 
"  Congress  shall  have  power  to  dispose  of  and  make  all  needful 
rules  and  regulations  respecting  the  territory  and  other  property 
belonging  to  the  United  States  ;  "  and  for  other  reasons. 

Does  "  territory  "  here  mean  land  or  inhabitants  f  If 
"  public  lands  "  be  substituted  for  "  territory,"  it  will  then  in 
the  Constitution  stand,  "  public  lands "  and  other  property ; 
but  if  you  substitute  "  colony,"  that  is,  inhabitants,  it  will 
stand,  "  Congress  shall  have  power  to  make  all  needful  rules 
concerning  the  '  colony  '  and  other  property."  "Where  now  is 
the  power  to  dispose  of  the  public  lands  ?  See  Senator  GEYER'S 
speech,  in  1856. 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  this  clause  conferred  upon  Congress 
no  political  power  over  the  "  territory  "  then  owned  by  the 
United  States,  but  only  power  to  dispose  of  it,  and  make  rules 
and  regulations  about  it  as  "  property." 

TERRITORY    OF   LOUISIANA. 

"  The  inhabitants  of  the  ceded  territory  shall  be  incorporated 
in  the  Union  of  the  United  States,  and  admitted  as  soon  as  pos 
sible,  according  to  the  principles  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  to 
the  enjoyment  of  all  the  rights,  and  advantages,  and  immunities 
of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  in  the  mean  time  shall 
be  maintained  BM& protected  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  liberty, 
property,  and  the  religion  they  profess." — Treaty  with  France, 
1803. 


212  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

"  At  tftis  time  slaves  were  held  by  the  people  of  Louisiana, 
through  the  whole  length  of  the  Mississippi  valley.  These 
people  had  an  unrestricted  right  of  settlement  with  their  slaves 
under  legal  protection  throughout  the  entire  ceded  province. 
Here  is  a  treaty  promise  to  protect  that  property,  that  slave 
property  in  that  Territory  before  it  should  become  a  State. 
This  promise  was  violated  at  the  time  of  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise,  by  Northern  votes."  Here  by  treaty  the  General  Govern 
ment  engage  to  protect  slave  property. 

In  1820,  Mr.  MADISON  wrote  :  "  The  questions  to  be  decided 
seem  to  be,  first,  whether  a  territorial  restriction  be  an  assump 
tion  of  illegitimate  power ;  or,  second,  a  misuse  of  legitimate 
power;  and  if  the  latter  only,  whether  the  injury  threatened  to 
the  nation  from  an  acquiescence  in  the  misuse,  or  from  the"  frus 
tration  of  it,  be  greater.  On  the  first  point,  there  is  certainly 
room  for  a  difference  of  opinion ;  though,  for  myself,  I  must 
own  that  I  have  always  leaned  to  the  belief  that  the  restriction 
was  not  within  the  true  scope  of  the  Constitution.  This  opinion 
of  Mr.  MADISON,  the  "  Father  of  the  Constitution,"  is  in  har 
mony  with  the  DEED  SCOTT  decision. 

In  the  Eepublican  platform,  (I860,)  there  is  the  following 
declaration :  "  That  the  normal  condition  of  the  territory  of  the 
United  States  is  that  of  freedom  ;  that  as  our  republican  fathers, 
when  they  had  abolished  slavery  in  our  national  territory,  or 
dained  that  no  person  should  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or 
property,  without  due  process  of  law,  it  becomes  our  duty,  by 
congressional  legislation,  whenever  such  legislation  shall  become 
necessary,  to  maintain  this  provision  of  the  Constitution  against 
all  attempts  to  violate  it ;  and  we  deny  the  authority  of  Con 
gress,  of  a  territorial  legislature,  of  any  individual  or  association 
of  individuals,  to  give  legal  existence  to  slavery  in  the  United 
States." 

On  this  declaration,  Senator  TOOMBS,  of  Georgia,  remarks : 
"  Then  you  declare  that  the  treaties  made  by  Mr.  JEFFERSON,  in 
1803,  are  null  and  void,  and  no  law  ;  then  you  declare  that  the 
acts  by  which  property  in  slaves  was  protected  and  allowed,  both 
by  territorial  and  congressional  acts,  in  Florida,  in  Louisiana,  in 
Missouri,  in  Mississippi  and  Alabama,  are  all  null,  void,  and  no 
law ;  you  declare  that  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  is 


WHO    WERE    PARTIES    TO   THE   CONSTITUTIONAL   COMPACT.       213 

null,  void,  and  no  law  ;  that  there  is  no  Constitution  but  the 
Chicago  platform  ;  yet  you  propose  to  come  here  and  take  pos 
session  of  this,  and  swear  to  maintain  the  Constitution  with  this 
reading,  and  you  are  quite  astonished  at  our  having  any  objec 
tions  to  the  peaceable  proceedings.  *  *  But  no  matter  what 
may  be  our  grievances,  the  honorable  Senator  from  Kentucky 
says  we  cannot  secede.  Well,  what  can  we  do?  Submit? 
They  say  they  are  the  strongest,  and  they  will  hang  us.  "Well, 
I  suppose  we  must  be  thankful  for  that  boon.  We  will  take 
that  risk.  We  will  stand  by  the  right.  We  will  take  the  Con 
stitution.  We  will  defend  it  by  the  sword,  with  halter  around 
our  neck." 


WHO    WERE    PARTIES    TO    THE    CONSTITUTIONAL    COMPACT. 

March  8,  18GO,  in  the  Senate,  Mr.  COLLAMAR,  of  Vermont : 
"  I  deny,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  States,  as  States,  entered  into 
this  compact.  That  is  repeated  so  often,  I  do  not  know  but 
it  is  believed.  When  a  State  acts,  it  acts  in  its  organized  ca 
pacity,  by  its  organs,  by  its  Legislature,  or  by  its  Executive. 
There  never  was  one  of  the  States  that  acted  in  this  way  in  the 
adoption  of  the  present  Constitution.  The  people  of  the  United 
States,  meeting  in  the  Conventions  in  the  several  States,  adopted 
the  United  States  Constitution.  The  States  never  acted  on  it 
as  States.  It  would  be  a  paradox  that  they  should  have  done 
so.  How  could  the  Legislature  of  North  Carolina,  for  instance, 
invested  as  it  was,  at  that  time,  by  the  people  with  the  power 
to  levy  and  collect  duties  upon  imports, — how  could  the  State 
in  its  organized  capacity,  through  that  organ,  delegate  that 
power  to  another  body  ?  It  could  not  be  done.  It  never  was 
done.  It  never  was  attempted  to  be  done.  The  people  of  the 
United  States  had  to  meet  in  their  several  States  in  their  origi 
nal  condition,  as  a  people  in  convention,  for  these  reasons  :  first, 
it  was  more  convenient ;  next,  if  the  people  of  North  Carolina 
had  invested  their  Legislature  with  the  power  to  levy  and  col 
lect  duties,  the  people  of  North  Carolina  alone  would  have  the 
power  to  invest  that  in  another  body,  to  wit,  Congress.  If  you 
called  the  whole  people  of  the  United  States,  it  would  be  a  dif 
ferent  people — it  would  be  a  different  set  of  people  to  take  that 


214  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

power  away  from  the  one  that  gave  it.  No,  sir,  it  is  not  true 
that  this  is  in  that  sense  a  Confederacy.  It  is  a  National  Gov 
ernment.  This  is  a  clear  statement  of  the  theory  that  the  States 
were  not  parties  to  the  constitutional  compact.  But  it  is  not 
supported  by  facts  or  comparative  weight  of  authority. 

MR.  WEBSTER'S  PROPOSITIONS  IN  THE  SENATE,  1832. 

1.  "  That  the  Constitution  of  the  United   States  is  not  a 
league,  confederacy,  or   compact,  between   the  people  of  the 
several  States  in  their  sovereign  capacities  ;  but  a  Government 
proper,  founded  on  the  adoption  of  the  people,  and  creating 
direct  relations  between  itself  and  individuals. 

2.  "  That  no  State  authority  has  power  to  dissolve  these  re 
lations  ;  that  nothing  can  dissolve  them  but  revolution ;    and 
that,  consequently,  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  secession  with 
out  revolution. 

3.  "  That  there  is  a  supreme  law,  consisting  of  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States,  acts  of  Congress  passed  in  pursuance 
of  it,  and  treaties ;  and  that,  in  cases  not  capable  of  assuming 
the  character  of  a  suit  at  law  or  equity,  Congress  must  judge 
of,  and  finally  interpret,  this  supreme  law,  so  often  as  it  has 
occasion  to  pass  acts  of  legislation  ;  and  in  cases  assuming  the 
character  of  a  suit,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  is 
the  final  interpreter. 

4.  "  That  an  attempt   by  a   State  to  abrogate,  annul,  or 
nullify  an  act  of  Congress,  or  to  arrest  its  operation  within  her 
limits,  on  the  ground  that,  in  her  opinion,  such  law  is  unconsti 
tutional,  is  a  direct  usurpation  on  the  just  powers  of  the  Gen 
eral  Government,  and  on  the  equal  rights  of  other  States,  a 
plain  violation  of  the  Constitution,  and  a  proceeding  essentially 
revolutionary  in  its  character  and  tendency." 

These  propositions  touching  nullification,  which  was  under 
consideration,  rather  than  secession,  were  not  formally  consider 
ed  by  the  Senate. 

Mr.  MADISON,  on  the  other  hand,  takes  a  different  view  of 
the  parties  to  the  compact  of  the  Constitution. 

"  On  examining  the  first  relation,  it  appears,  on  one  hand, 


MK.  MADISON'S  VIEWS.  215 

that  the  Constitution  is  to  be  founded  on  the  assent  and  ratifi 
cation  of  the  people  of  America,  given  by  deputies  elected  for 
the  special  purpose ;  but  on  the  other,  that  this  assent  and  rati 
fication  is  given  by  the  people,  not  as  individuals  composing 
one  entire  nation,  ~but  as  composing  the  distinct  and  independent 
States  to  which  they  respectively  belong. 

"  This  assent  and  ratification  is  to  be  given  by  the  people, 
not  as  individuals  composing  one  entire  nation,  but  as  compos 
ing  the  distinct  and  independent  States  to  which  they  respec 
tively  belong.  It  is  to  be  the  assent  and  ratification  of  the  sev 
eral  States,  derived  from  the  supreme  authority  in  each  State — 
the  authority  of  the  people  themselves.  The  act,  therefore, 
establishing  the  Constitution,  will  not  be  a  national,  but  a  Fed 
eral  act. 

"  That  it  will  be  a  Federal  and  not  a  national  act,  as  these 
terms  are  understood  by  the  objectors,  the  act  of  the  people,  as 
forming  so  many  independent  States,  not  as  forming  an  aggre 
gate  nation,  is  obvious  from  this  single  consideration,  that  it  is 
to  result  neither  from  the  decision  of  a  majority  of  the  people, 
nor  from  a  majority  of  the  States.  It  must  result  from  the 
unanimous  assent  of  the  several  States  that  are  parties  to  it, 
differing  no  otherwise  from  their  ordinary  consent  than  in  its 
being  expressed,  not  by  the  legislative  authority,  but  by  that 
of  the  people  themselves." 

Mr.  MADISON  also  said :  An  observation  fell  from  a  gentle 
man  on  the  same  side  as  myself,  which  deserves  to  be  attended 
to.  "  If  we  be  dissatisfied  with  the  National  Government,  if 
we  should  choose  to  renounce  it,  this  is  an  additional  safeguard 
to  our  defence."  Here  Mr.  MADISON  expresses  his  concurrence 
with  the  gentleman  mentioned,  in  the  declaration,  that  if  the 
State  of  Virginia  is  dissatisfied  with  the  General  Government 
in  its  practical  workings,  she  can  renounce  it. 

In  reference  to  the  Federal  Government  and  its  powers  and 
purposes,  in  the  forty-fifth  number  of  the  Federalist,  this  lan 
guage  is  used  : 

"  The  powers  delegated  to  the  Federal  Government  are  few 
and  defined.  Those  which  are  to  remain  to  the  State  Govern 
ment  are  numerous  and  indefinite." 

This,  then,  is  the  distinction  between  the  two  Governments. 


216  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

The  powers  granted  to  the  Federal  Government  are  "  few  and 
defined,"  those  reserved  to  the  States  are  "  numerous  and  in 
definite." 

"The  former  [the  Federal  Government]  will  be  exercised 
principally  on  external  objects,  as  war,  peace,  negotiation,  and 
foreign  commerce ;  with  which  last  the  power  of  taxation  will 
for  the  most  part  be  connected.  The  powers  reserved  to  the 
several  States  will  extend  to  all  the  objects  which,  in  the  ordi 
nary  course  of  affairs,  concern  the  lives,  the  liberties,  and  the 
properties  of  the  people,  and  the  internal  order,  improvement, 
and  prosperity  of  the  State." 

"  I  have  never  believed  that  a  State  could  nullify,  and  re 
main  in  the  Union ;  but  I  have  always  believed  that  a  State 
might  secede  when  it  pleased,  provided  she  would  pay  her  pro 
portion  of  the  public  debt ;  and  this  right  I  have  considered  the 
best  guard  to  public  liberty  and  to  public  justice  that  could  be 
devised,  and  it  ought  to  have  prevented  what  is  now  felt  in  the 
South — oppression." — NATHANIEL  MACON,  of  North  Carolina, 
Feb.  9, 1833. 

Mr.  MACON  was  regarded  as  an  eminently  wise  man  in  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States,  of  which,  for  a  long  time,  he  was 
regarded  as  the  father. 

ORDINANCE    OF    SECESSION     PASSED    BY   THE   PEOPLE   OF    THE    STATE 
OF   GEORGIA,    JANUARY    19,    1861. 

"We,  the  people  of  the  State  of  Georgia,  in  convention 
assembled,  do  declare  and  ordain,  and  it  is  hereby  declared  and 
ordained,  that  the  ordinance  adopted  by  the  people  of  Georgia 
in  convention,  in  the  year  1788,  whereby  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  was  assented  to,  ratified  and  adopted,  and 
also  acts  and  parts  of  acts  of  the  General  Assembly  ratifying 
and  adopting  amendments  to  the  said  Constitution,  are  hereby 
repealed,  rescinded,  and  abrogated  ;  and  we  do  further  declare 
and  ordain,  that  the  Union  now  subsisting  between  the  State  of 
Georgia  and  the  other  States,  under  the  name  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  is  hereby  dissolved,  and  that  this  State  is  in 
the  full  possession  of  those  rights  of  sovereignty  which  belong 
and  appertain  to  a  free  and  independent  State." 


MR.    MADISON   ON    SECESSION.  217 

The  people  of  South  Carolina  passed  the  ordinance  secession 
Dec.  20,  1860,  thus  leading  the  way  in  that  great  sectional 
movement. 

MR.    MADISON   ON    SECESSION. 

In  a  letter  written  in  1833,  Mr.  MADISON  uses  the  following 
language :  "It  surely  does  not  follow  from  the  fact  that  the 
States,  or  rather  the  people  embodied  in  them,  having,  as  par 
ties  to  the  constitutional  compact,  no  tribunal  above  them,  that 
in  controverted  meanings  of  the  compact  a  minority  of  the  par 
ties  can  rightfully  decide  against  the  majority,  still  less  that  a 
single  party  can  at  will  withdraw  itself  altogether  from  its  com 
pact  with  the  rest." 

In  1787  he  used  the  following  language :  "  It  has  been 
alleged  that  the  confederation,  having  been  formed  by  unani 
mous  consent,  could  be  dissolved  by  unanimous  consent  only. 
Does  this  doctrine  result  from  the  nature  of  compacts  ?  Does  it 
arise  from  any  particular  stipulation  on  the  articles  of  confed 
eration  ?  If  we  consider  the  Federal  Union  as  analogous  to  the 
fundamental  compact  by  which  individuals  compose  our  society, 
and  which  must,  in  its  theoretic  origin  at  least,  have  been  the 
unanimous  act  of  the  component  members,  it  cannot  be  said 
that  no  dissolution  of  the  compact  can  be  effected  without  unan 
imous  consent.  A  breach  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
compact  l}y  apart  of  the  society  would  certainly  absolve  the  other 
part  from  their  obligations  to  it" 

"  Whether  a  State  can  or  cannot  secede,  and  what  others 
may  do  towards  her,  or  she  towards  them — these  are  questions 
behind  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and,  if  I  may  say 
so  without  inconvenience,  far  above  it.  These  are  questions  of 
political  science  and  not  of  constitutional  construction ;  ques 
tions  upon  which  empires  are  often  dismembered  and  dynasties 
overthrown." — Mr.  PUGII,  in  the  Senate,  Dec.  20,  1860. 

"  The  whole  theory  of  our  Government  is  built  upon  the 
expectation  that  the  States  will  not  secede,  but  that  all  will 
continue  to  be  integral  parts  of  the  confederacy.  If  you  ask, 
where  is  authority  under  the  Constitution  for  a  State  to  secede  ? 
I  would  ask,  where  is  there  any  thing  in  the  Constitution  to 
prevent  its  secession  ?  " — Senator  PUGH,  Dec.  20,  1860. 


218  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

"  It  depends  on  the  State  itself  whether  to  retain  or  to 
abolish  the  principle  of  representation,  because  it  depends  on 
itself  whether  it  will  remain  a  member  of  the  Union.  To  deny 
this  right,  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  principle  on  which  all 
our  political  systems  are  founded ;  which  is,  that  the  people 
have  in  all  cases  a  right  to  determine  how  they  will  be  gov 
erned. 

"  The  secession  of  a  State  from  the  Union  depends  on  the 
will  of  the  people  of  such  State.  The  people  alone,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  have  the  power  to  alter  the  Constitution." — WIL 
LIAM  RAWLE,  of  Pennsylvania,  1825. 

This  very  able  man  was  offered  the  office  of  Attorney-Gen 
eral,  by  WASHINGTON. 

President  BUCHANAN,  in  his  annual  Message,  1860  : 

"  In  order  to  justify  secession  as  a  constitutional  remedy,  it 
must  be  on  the  principle  that  the  Federal  Government  is  a  mere 
voluntary  association  of  States,  to  be  dissolved  at  pleasure  by 
any  one  of  the  contracting  parties.  If  this  be  so,  the  confed 
eracy  is  a  rope  of  sand,  to  be  penetrated  and  dissolved  by  the 
first  adverse  wave  of  public  opinion  in  any  of  the  States.  In 
this  manner  our  thirty-three  States  may  resolve  themselves  into 
as  many  petty  jarring  and  hostile  republics,  each  one  retiring 
from  the  Union  without  responsibility,  whenever  any  sudden 
excitement  might  impel  them  to  such  a  course.  By  this 
course  a  Union  might  be  entirely  broken  up  into  fragments  in  a 
few  weeks,  which  cost  our  fathers  many  years  of  toil,  privation, 
and  blood  to  establish. 

"  It  is  not  pretended  that  any  clause  in  the  Constitution 
gives  countenance  to  such  a  theory.  It  is  altogether  founded 
on  inference,  not  from  any  language  contained  in  the  instru 
ment  itself,  but  from  the  sovereign  character  of  the  several  States 
by  which  it  was  ratified.  But  is  it  beyond  the  power  of  a  State, 
like  an  individual,  to  yield  a  portion  of  its  sovereign  rights  to 
secure  the  remainder  ?  In  the  language  of  Madison,  who  has 
been  called  the  father  of  the  Constitution,  it  was  formed  by  the 
States — that  is,  by  the  people  in  each  of  the  States  acting  in 
their  highest  sovereign  capacity  ;  and  formed,  consequently  j  by 
the  authority  which  formed  the  State  Constitutions. 

"  Nor  is  the  Government  of  the  United  States  created  by  the 


THE    COERCION   OF    A   STATE    BY    PHYSICAL    FORCE.  219 

Constitution  less  a  Government  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term 
within  the  sphere  of  its  powers,  than  the  governments  created 
by  the  Constitutions  of  the  States  are  within  their  several 
spheres."  The  whole  argument  of  President  BUCHANAN  in  his 
annual  Message  of  1860,  is  one  of  the  ablest  against  secession. 

"  I  believe  that  it  contravenes  no  provision  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  for  one  or  more  of  the  States  to  secede  from  the  Union ; 
not  by  virtue  of  any  power  conferred  upon  them  by  that  instru 
ment,  but  in  consequence  of  the  States  never  having  surrendered 
it  to  the  General  Government :  the  Constitution  declares  that '  the 
powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the  Constitution 
are  reserved  to  the  States  respectively,  or  the  people.'  I  appre 
hend  that  it  will  be  admitted  that  the  States  may  exercise  any 
or  all  of  their  reserved  powers  without  a  violation  of  the  Con 
stitution.  If,  then,  they  have  never  parted  with  their  right  to 
resume  their  original  sovereignty,  when,  in  their  opinion,  the 
Government  becomes  destructive  of  the  ends  for  which  it  was 
instituted,  it  is  no  violation  of  the  Constitution  for  them  to 
secede.  If  there  is  any  clause  in  the  Constitution  by  which 
they  deprived  themselves  of  this  right,  it  has  escaped  my  obser 
vation." — Senator  HUNTER,  of  Virginia,  Jan.  15,  1861. 

This  expresses  the  Southern  view,  as  President  BUCHANAN  in 
his  message  does  the  Northern. 

THE   COERCION    OF   A    STATE   BY    PHYSICAL    FORCE. 

On  the  subject  of  coercion,  ALEXANDER  HAMILTON  said  :  "  It 
has  been  observed,  to  coerce  the  States  is  one  of  the  saddest  pro 
jects  that  was  ever  devised.  A  failure  of  compliance  will  never 
be  confined  to  a  single  State ;  this  being  the  case,  can  we  sup 
pose  it  wise  to  hazard  a  civil  war?  Suppose  Massachusetts,  or 
any  larger  State  should  refuse,  and  Congress  should  attempt  to 
compel  them,  would  they  not  have  influence  to  procure  assist 
ance,  especially  from  those  States  that  are  in  the  same  situation 
as  themselves  ?  "What  a  picture  does  this  idea  present  to  our 
view  ?  A  complying  State  at  war  with  a  non-complying  State  ; 
Congress  marching  the  troops  of  one  State  into  the  bosom  of 
another ;  the  State  collecting  auxiliaries,  and  forming,  perhaps, 
a  majority  against  its  Federal  head.  Here  is  a  nation  at  war 
15 


220  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

with  itself.  Can  any  reasonable  man  "be  well  disposed  towards 
a  Government  which  makes  war  and  carnage  the  only  means  of 
supporting  itself? — a  Government  that  can  exist  only  by  the 
sword  ?  Every  such  war  must  involve  the  innocent  with  the 
guilty.  This  single  consideration  should  be  sufficient  to  dispose 
every  peaceable  citizen  against  such  a  Government." 

On  the  same  subject,  GEOKGE  MASON,  of  Virginia,  said :  "  The 
most  jarring  elements  of  nature,  sin  and  malice,  are  not  more 
incompatible  than  such  a  mixture  of  civil  liberty  and  military 
execution.  Will  the  militia  march  from  one  State  into  another, 
in  order  to  collect  the  arrears  of  taxes  from  the  delinquent 
members  of  the  Republic  ?  Will  they  maintain  an  army  for 
this  purpose  ?  Will  not  the  citizens  of  the  invaded  States  assist 
one  another  till  they  rise  and  shake  off  the  Union  altogether?  * 
*  *  To  punish  the  non-payment  of  taxes  with  death,  is  a 
severity  not  yet  adopted  by  despotism  itself;  yet  this  unexam 
pled  cruelty  would  be  mercy,  compared  to  a  military  collection 
of  revenue,  in  which  the  bayonet  could  make  no  distinction 
between  the  innocent  and  the  guilty." — See  Mr.  MADISON'S 
views  on  this  subject,  page  49. 

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS,  in  his  special  Message,  Feb.  5, 1827,  in 
respect  to  the  resistance  of  Georgia  to  Federal  requisitions, 
said  :  "  In  abstaining  at  this  stage  of  the  proceedings  from  the 
application  of  any  military  force,  I  have  been  governed  by  con 
siderations  which  will,  I  trust,  meet  the  concurrence  of  the  Leg 
islature.  Among  these,  one  of  prominent  importance  has  been, 
that  these  surveys  have  been  attempted  and  partly  effected 
under  color  of  legal  authority  from  the  State  of  Georgia  ;  that 
the  surveyors  are,  therefore,  not  to  be  viewed  in  the  light  of  indi 
vidual  and  solitary  transgressors,  hut  as  the  agents  of  a  sover 
eign  State  acting  in  obedience  to  authority  which  they  "believed 
to  he  binding  upon  them." 

Mr.  MADISON,  on  the  8th  of  June,  17S7,  said  in  convention  : 
"  Any  Government  for  the  United  States  formed  on  the  sup 
posed  practicability  of  using  force  against  the  unconstitutional 
proceedings  of  the  States,  would  prove  as  visionary  and  falla 
cious  as  the  Government  of  Congress,"  evidently  meaning  the 
then  existing  Congress  of  the  Confederation. 

Mr.  BUCHANAN  in  his  annual  address,  1860,  discusses  the 


THE   COERCION    OF    A    STATE    BY    PHYSICAL    FORCE.  221 

question,  "  Has  the  Constitution  delegated  to  Congress  the 
power  to  coerce  a  State  into  submission  which  is  attempting  to 
withdraw,  and  has  actually  withdrawn  from  the  confederacy  ? 
If  answered  in  the  affirmative  it  must  be  on  the  principle  that 
power  has  been  conferred  upon  Congress  to  declare  and  to 
make  war  against  a  State.  After  much  serious  reflection,  I 
have  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  no  such  power  has  been 
delegated  to  Congress,  or  to  any  other  department  of  the  Fed 
eral  Government.  It  is  manifest  upon  an  inspection  of  the  Con 
stitution,  that  this  is  not  among  the  enumerated  powers  granted 
to  Congress  ;  and  it  is  equally  apparent  that  its  exercise  is  not 
i  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  into  execution '  any  one  of 
these  powers.  So  far  from  this  power  having  been  delegated  to 
Congress,  it  was  expressly  refused  by  the  convention  which 
formed  the  Constitution."  See  MADISON  papers,  p.  Y61. 

"  Without  descending  to  particulars,  it  may  be  safely 
asserted  that  the  power  to  make  war  against  a  State  is  at 
variance  with  the  whole  spirit  and  intent  of  the  Constitution. 

"  But  if  we  possessed  this  power  would  it  be  wise  to  exer 
cise  it  under  existing  circumstances?  The  object  doubtless 
would  be  to  preserve  the  Union.  War  would  not  only  present 
the  most  effectual  means  of  destroying  it ;  but  would  banish  all 
hope  of  its  peaceable  re-construction."  *  *  * 

"  The  fact  is  that  our  Union  rests  upon  public  opinion,  and 
can  never  be  cemented  by  the  blood  of  its  citizens  shed  in  civil 
war.  If  it  cannot  live  in  the  affections  of  the  people,  it  must 
one  day  perish.  Congress  possesses  many  means  of  preserving 
it  by  conciliation,  but  the  sword  was  not  placed  in  its  hands  to 
destroy  it  by  force."  These  views  he  repeats  in  a  special  Mes 
sage  on  the  subject. 

President  BUCHANAN,  in  his  special  Message,  Jan.  8,  1861, 
after  denying  the  right  of  secession,  on  the  part  of  the  States, 
and  the  right  of  coercion  on  the  part  -of  the  General  Govern 
ment  against  seceding  States,  says :  "  But  the  right  and  duty  to 
use  military  force  defensively  against  those  who  resist  the  Fed 
eral  officers  in  the  execution  of  their  legal  functions,  and  against 
those  who  spoil  the  powrer  of  the  Federal  Government,  is  clear 
and  undeniable." 

To  this  Senator  DAVIS,  of  Mississippi,  Jan.  10,  1861,  replies  : 


222  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

"  Is  it  so  ?  "Where  does  lie  get  it  ?  Our  fathers  were  so  jealous 
of  a  standing  army  that  they  would  scarcely  permit  the  organ 
ization  and  maintenance  of  any  army.  Where  does  he  get  the 
'  clear  and  undeniable '  power  to  use  the  force  of  the  United 
States  in  the  manner  he  then  proposes  ?  To  execute  a  process, 
troops  may  be  summoned  as  &  posse  comitatus  •  and  here  in  the 
history  of  our  Government,  it  is  not  to  be  forgotten  that  in  the 
earlier,  better  days  of  the  Republic — and  painfully  do  we  feel 
that  they  were  better  indeed — a  President  of  the  United  States 
did  not  recur  to  the  army  ;  he  went  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States.  Vaguely  and  confusedly,  indeed,  did  the  Senator  from 
Tennessee  (ANDREW  JOHNSON)  bring  forward  the  case  of  the 
great  man,  Washington,  as  one,  in  which  he  had  used  a  power 
which  was  equivalent  to  the  coercion  of  a  State,  for  he  said  that 
"Washington  used  the  military  power  against  a  portion  of  the 
people  of  a  State ;  and  why  might  he  not  have  used  it  against 
the  whole  State  ? 

"  Let  me  tell  that  Senator  that  the  case  of  General  Washing 
ton  has  no  application  as  he  supposes.  It  was  a  case  of  insur 
rection  within  the  Stato  of  Pennsylvania ;  and  the  very  mes 
sage  from  which  he  read  communicated  the  fact  that  Governor 
MIFFLIN  thought  it  necessary  to  call  the  militia  of  adjoining 
States  to  co-operate  with  those  of  Pennsylvania.  He  used  the 
militia  not  as  a  standing  army.  It  was  by  the  consent  of  the 
Governor;  it  was  by  his  advice.  It  was  not  the  invasion  of 
the  State,  It  was  not  the  coercion  of  the  State ;  but  it  was 
aiding  the  State  to  put  down  insurrection,  and  in  the  very  man 
ner  provided  in  the  Constitution  itself. 

"  But,  I  ask  again,  what  power  has  the  President  to  use  the 
army  and  navy  except  to  execute  process  ?  Are  we  to  have 
drumhead  courts  substituted  for  those  which  the  Constitution 
and  the  laws  provide  ?  Are  we  to  have  sergeants  sent  over  the 
land  instead  of  civil  magistrates?  Kot  so  thought  the  elder 
Adams.  *  *  *  I  say  then,  when  we  trace  our  history  to  its 
early  foundation  under  the  first  two  Presidents  of  the  United 
States,  we  find  that  this  idea  of  using  the  army  and  the  navy  to 
execute  the  laws  at  the  discretion  of  the  President,  was  not  even 
entertained,  still  less  acted  upon,  in  any  case." 


CAUSES    OF   THE    SECESSION    OF    SOUTH    CAROLINA.  223 

DECLARATION    BY  THE   CONVENTION    OF    SOUTH    CAROLINA    OF   CAUSES 
"WHICH    LED   TO   THE    SECESSION    OF   THAT    STATE. 

Dec.  24,  1860. 

The  people  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina,  in  Convention 
assembled,  on  the  2d  day  of  April,  A.  D.  1852,  declared  that 
the  frequent  violations  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
by  the  Federal  Government,  and  its  encroachments  upon  the 
reserved  rights  of  the  States,  fully  justified  this  State  in  their 
withdrawal  from  the  Federal  Union ;  but  in  deference  to  the 
opinions  and  wishes  of  the  other  slaveholding  States,  she  for 
bore  at  that  time  to  exercise  this  right.  Since  that  time  these 
encroachments  have  continued  to  increase,  and  further  for 
bearance  ceases  to  be  a  virtue. 

And  now  the  State  of  South  Carolina,  having  resumed  her 
separate  and  equal  place  among  nations,  deems  it  due  to  herself, 
to  the  remaining  United  States  of  America,  and  to  the  nations 
of  the  world,  that  she  should  declare  the  immediate  causes 
which  have  led  to  this  act. 

In  the  year  1765,  that  portion  of  the  British  Empire  em 
bracing  Great  Britain,  undertook  to  make  laws  for  the  Govern 
ment  of  that  portion  composed  of  the  thirteen  American  Colo 
nies.  A  struggle  for  the  right  of  self-government  ensued,  which 
resulted,  on  the  4th  of  July,  1776,  in  a  Declaration,  by  the 
Colonies,  "  that  thev  are,  and  of  ri":ht  ought  to  be,  FREE  AND 

«/  O  O 

INDEPENDENT  STATES  ;  and  that,  as  free  and  independent  States, 
they  have  full  power  to  levy  war,  conclude  peace,  contract 
alliances,  establish  commerce,  and  to  do  all  other  acts  and 
things  which  independent  States  may  of  right  do." 

They  further  solemnly  declared,  that  whenever  any  "  form 
of  Government  becomes  destructive  of  the  ends  for  which  it 
was  established,  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  alter  or  abolish 
it,  and  to  institute  a  new  Government."  Deeming  the  Govern 
ment  of  Great  Britain  to  have  become  destructive  of  these  ends, 
they  declared  that  the  Colonies  "  are  absolved  from  all  alle 
giance  to  the  British  Crown,  and  that  all  political  connection 
between  them  and  the  State  of  Great  Britain  is,  and  ought  to 
be,  totally  dissolved." 

In  pursuance  of  this  Declaration  of  Independence,  each  of 


THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

the  thirteen  States  proceeded  to  exercise  its  separate  sover 
eignty  ;  adopted  for  itself  a  Constitution,  and  appointed  officers 
for  the  administration  of  Government  in  all  its  departments — 
Legislative,  Executive,  and  Judicial.  For  purposes  of  defence 
they  united  their  arms  and  their  counsels ;  and,  in  1778,  they 
entered  into  a  League,  known  as  the  Articles  of  Confederation, 
whereby  they  agreed  to  intrust  the  administration  of  their 
external  relations  to  a  common  agent,  known  as  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States,  expressly  declaring,  in  the  first  article, 
"  that  each  State  retains  its  sovereignty,  freedom,  and  inde 
pendence,  and  every  power,  jurisdiction,  and  right,  which  is 
not,  by  this  Confederation,  expressly  delegated  to  the  United 
States  in  Congress  assembled." 

Under  this  Confederation  the  "War  of  the  Revolution  was 
carried  on ;  and  on  the  3d  of  September,  1783,  the  contest 
ended,  and  a  definite  Treaty  was  signed  by  Great  Britain,  in 
which  she  acknowledged  the  Independence  of  the  Colonies  in 
the  following  terms : 

"  ARTICLE  1.  His  Britannic  Majesty  acknowledges  the  said 
United  States,  viz. :  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts  Bay,  Rhode 
Island  and  Providence  Plantations,  Connecticut,  New  York, 
New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia, 
North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and  Georgia,  to  be  FREE, 
SOVEREIGN,  AND  INDEPENDENT  STATES  ;  that  lie  treats  wkh  them 
as  such  ;  and,  for  himself,  his  heirs  and  successors,  relinquishes 
all  claims  to  the  Government,  propriety,  and  territorial  rights 
of  the  same  and  ever/  part  thereof." 

Thus  were  established  the  two  great  principles  asserted  by 
the  Colonies,  namely,  the  right  of  a  State  to  govern  itself;  and 
the  right  of  a  people  to  abolish  a  Government  when  it  becomes 
destructive  of  the  ends  for  which  it  was  instituted.  And  con 
current  with  the  establishment  of  these  principles,  was  the  fact, 
that  each  Colony  became  and  was  recognized  by  the  mother 
country  as  a  FREE,  SOVEREIGN,  AND  INDEPENDENT  STATE. 

In  1787,  Deputies  were  appointed  by  the  States  to  revise 
the  articles  of  Confederation-;  and  on  17th  September,  1787, 
these  Deputies  recommended,  for  the  adoption  of  the  States,  the 
Articles  of  Union,  known  as  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States. 


CAUSES    OF   THE    SECESSION    OF    SOUTH    CAROLINA.  225 

The  parties  to  whom  this  Constitution  was  submitted,  were 
the  several  sovereign  States ;  they  were  to  agree  or  disagree, 
and  when  nine  of  them  agreed,  the  compact  was  to  take  effect 
among  those  concurring ;  and  the  General  Government,  as  the 
common  agent,  was  then  to  be  invested  with  their  authority. 

If  only  nine  of  the  thirteen  States  had  concurred,  the  other 
four  would  have  remained  as  they  then  were — separate,  sov 
ereign  States,  independent  of  any  of  the  provisions  of  the  Con 
stitution.  In  fact,  two  of  the  States  did  not  accede  to  the 
Constitution  until  long  after  it  had  gone  into  operation  among 
the  other  eleven  ;  and  during  that  interval,  they  each  exercised 
the  functions  of  an  independent  nation. 

By  this  Constitution,  certain  duties  were  imposed  upon  the 
several  States,  and  the  exercise  of  certain  of  their  powers  was 
restrained,  which  necessarily  impelled  their  continued  existence 
as  sovereign  States.  But,  to  remove  all  doubt,  an  amendment 
was  added,  which  declared  that  the  powers  not  delegated  to 
the  United  States  by  the  Constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to 
the  States,  are  reserved  to  the  States  respectively,  or  to  the 
people.  On  the  23d  May,  1788,  South  Carolina,  by  a  Conven 
tion  of  her  people,  passed  an  ordinance  assenting  to  this  Con 
stitution,  and  afterwards  altered  her  own  Constitution  to 
conform  herself  to  the  obligations  she  had  undertaken. 

Thus  was  established,  by  compact  between  the  States,  a 
Government  with  defined  objects  and  powers,  limited  to  the 
express  words  of  the  grant.  This  limitation  left  the  whole 
remaining  mass  of  power  subject  to  the  clause  reserving  it  to 
the  States  or  the  people,  and  rendered  unnecessary  any  specifi 
cation  of  reserved  rights.  "We  hold  that  the  Government  thus 

O 

established  is  subject  to  the  two  great  principles  asserted  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence ;  and  we  hold  further,  that  the 
mode  of  its  formation  subjects  it  to  a  third  fundamental  prin 
ciple,  namely,  the  law  of  compact.  We  maintain  that  in  every 
compact  between  two  or  more  parties,  the  obligation  is  mutual ; 
that  the  failure  of  one  of  the  contracting  parties  to  perform  a 
material  part  of  the  agreement,  entirely  releases  the  obligation 
of  the  other  ;  and  that,  where  no  arbiter  is  provided,  each  party- 
is  remitted  to  his  own  judgment  to  determine  the  fact  of  failure, 
with  all  its  consequences. 


226  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

In  the  present  case,  that  fact  is  established  with  certainty. 
We  assert  that  fourteen  of  the  States  have  deliberately  refused 
for  years  past  to  fulfil  their  Constitutional  obligations,  and  we 
refer  to  their  own  statutes  for  the  proof. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  in  its  fourth  Article, 
provides  as  follows  : 

"  No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State  under  the 
laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall,  in  consequence  of 
any  law  or  regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such  service 
or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up,  on  claim  of  the  party  to 
whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due." 

This  stipulation  was  so  material  to  the  compact  that  without 
it  that  compact  would  not  have  been  made.  The  greater  num 
ber  of  the  contracting  parties  held  slaves,  and  they  had  pre 
viously  evinced  their  estimate  of  the  value  of  such  a  stipulation 
by  making  it  a  condition  in  the  Ordinance  for  the  Government 
of  the  territory  ceded  by  Virginia,  which  obligations,  and  the 
laws  of  the  General  Government,  have  ceased  to  effect  the 
objects  of  the  Constitution.  The  States  of  Maine,  New  Hamp 
shire,  Vermont,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Rhode  Island, 
New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Michigan,  "Wis 
consin,  and  Iowa,  have  enacted  laws  which  either  nullify  the 
acts  of  Congress,  or  render  useless  any  attempt  to  execute  them. 
In  many  of  these  States  the  fugitive  is  discharged  from  the 
service  of  labor  claimed,  and  in  none  of  them  has  the  State 
Government  complied  with  the  stipulation  made  in  the  Con 
stitution.  The  State  of  New  Jersey,  at  an  early  day,  passed  a 
law  in  conformity  with  her  constitutional  obligation ;  but  the 
current  of  Anti-Slavery  feeling  -has  led  her  more  recently  to 
enact  laws  which  render  inoperative  the  remedies  provided  by 
her  own  laws  and  by  the  laws  of  Congress.  In  the  State  of 
New  York  even  the  right  of  transit  for  a  slave  has  been  denied 
by  her  tribunals  ;  and  the  States  of  Ohio  and  Iowa  have  refused 
to  surrender  to  justice  fugitives  charged  with  murder,  and  with 
inciting  servile  insurrection  in  the  State  of  Virginia.  Thus  the 
constitutional  compact  has  been  deliberately  broken  and  dis 
regarded  by  the  non-slaveholding  States.;  and  the  consequence 
follows  that  South  Carolina  is  released  from  her  obligation. 

The  ends  for  which  this  Constitution  was  framed  are  declared 


CAUSES   OF   THE   SECESSION   OF   SOUTH   CAEOLINA.  227 

by  itself  to  be  "  to  form  a  more  perfect  Union,  to  establish 
justice,  insure  domestic  tranquillity,  provide  for  the  common 
defence,  promote  the  general  welfare,  and  secure  the  blessings 
of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity." 

These  ends  it  endeavored  to  accomplish  by  a  Federal  Gov 
ernment,  in  which  each  State  was  recognized  as  an  equal,  and 
had  separate  control  over  its  own  institutions.  The  right  of 
property  in  slaves  was  recognized  by  giving  to  free  persons 
distinct  political  rights  ;  by  giving  them  the  right  to  represent, 
and  burdening  them  with  direct  taxes  for  three-fifths  of  their 
slaves  ;  by  authorizing  the  importation  of  slaves  for  twenty 
years ;  and  by  stipulating  for  the  rendition  of  fugitives  from 
labor. 

We  affirm  that  these  ends  for  which  this  Government  was 
instituted  have  been  defeated,  and  the  Government  itself  has 
been  destructive  of  them  by  the  action  of  the  non-slaveholding 
States.  Those  States  have  assumed  the  right  of  deciding  upon 
the  propriety  of  our  domestic  institutions ;  and  have  denied 
the  rights  of  property  established  in  fifteen  of  the  States  and 
recognized  by  the  Constitution  ;  they  have  denounced  as  sinful 
the  institution  of  slavery  ;  they  have  permitted  the  open  estab 
lishment  among  them  of  societies,  whose  avowed  object  is  to 
disturb  the  peace  of  and  eloin  the  property  of  the  citizens  of 
other  States.  They  have  encouraged  and  assisted  thousands  of 
our  slaves  to  leave  their  homes ;  and  those  who  remain  have 
been  incited  by  emissaries,  books,  and  pictures,  to  servile  in 
surrection. 

For  twenty-five  years  this  agitation  has  been  steadily  in 
creasing,  until  it  has  now  secured  to  its  aid  the  power  of  the 
common  Government.  Observing  the  forms  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  a  sectional  party  has  found  within  that  article  establishing 
the  Executive  Department,  the  means  of  subverting  the  Con 
stitution  itself.  /  K  geographical  line  has  been  drawn  across  the 
Union,  and  all  the  States  north  of  that  line  have  united  in  the 
election  of  a  man  to  the  high  office  of  President  of  the  United 
States,  whose  opinions  and  purposes  are  hostile  to  slavery.  He 
is  to  be  intrusted  with  the  administration  of  the  common  Gov 
ernment,  because  he  has  declared  that  that  "  Government  can 
not  endure  permanently  half  slave,  half  free,"  and  that  the 


228  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

public  mind  must  rest  in  the  belief  .that  slavery  is  in  the  course 
of  ultimate  extinction. 

This  sectional  combination  for  the  subversion  of  the  Con 
stitution  has  been  aided,  in  some  of  the  States,  by  elevating  to 
citizenship  persons  who,  by  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  are 
incapable  of  becoming  citizens  ;  and  their  votes  have  been  used 
to  inaugurate  a  new  policy,  hostile  to  the  South,  and  destructive 
of  its  peace  and  safety. 

On  the  4th  of  March  next,  this  party  will  take  possession 
of  the  Government.  It  has  announced  that  the  South  shall  be 
excluded  from  the  common  territory,  that  the  Judicial  tribunal 
shall  be  made  sectional,  and  that  a  war  must  be  waged  against 
slavery  until  it  shall  cease  throughout  the  United  States. 

The  guarantees  of  the  Constitution  will  then  no  longer  exist ; 
the  equal  rights  of  the  States  will  be  lost.  The  slaveholding 
States  will  no  longer  have  the  power  of  self-government,  or  self- 
protection,  and  the  Federal  Government  will  have  become  their 
,  enemy. 

Sectional  interest  and  animosity  will  deepen  the  irritation ; 
and  all  hope  of  remedy  is  rendered  vain,  by  the  fact  that  the 
public  opinion  at  the  North  has  invested  a  great  political  error 
with  the  sanctions  of  a  more  erroneous  religious  belief. 

"We,  therefore,  the  people  of  South  Carolina,  by  our  dele 
gates  in  Convention  assembled,  appealing  to  the  Supreme  Judge 
of  the  world  for  the  rectitude  of  our  intentions,  have  solemnly 
declared  that  the  Union  heretofore  existing  between  this  State 
and  the  other  States  of  North  America  is  dissolved,  and  that 
the  State  of  South  Carolina  has  resumed  her  position  among 
the  nations  of  the  world,  as  a  separate  and  independent  State, 
with  full  power  to  levy  war,  conclude  peace,  contract  alliances, 
establish  commerce,  and  to  do  all  other  acts  and  things  which 
independent  States  may  of  right  do." 

After  making  the  above  declaration,  the  Convention  of 
South  Carolina  appointed  K.  W.  BAKNWELL,  J.  II.  ADAMS,  and 
JAS.  L.  ORR,  commissioners  to  proceed  to  Washington,  as  com 
missioners  to  treat  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
on  various  subjects  connected  with  the  secession  of  the  State. 
This  they  ineffectually  attempted,  Dec.  29,  1860,  President  BU 
CHANAN  declining  to  receive  them  in  their  official  character. 


THE    CKITTENDEN    RESOLUTIONS.  229 

THE   PEACE   CONGRESS. 

On  January  19,  1861,  the  General  Assembly  of  Yirginia 
passed  a  preamble  and  resolutions  inviting  the  States  to  send 
commissioners  to  Washington  to  adjust  the  sectional  difficulties 
which  threatened  the  integrity  of  the  Union.  These  resolutions 
recommended  the  CKITTENDEN  resolutions  as  the  basis  of  set 
tlement. 

THE    CRITTENDEN    RESOLUTIONS. 

In  order  to  settle  the  sectional  disputes,  Senator  CKITTENDEN 
brought  forward  a  resolution  embracing  several  articles  with 
the  following  preamble :  "  Whereas  serious  and  alarming  dis 
sensions  have  arisen  between  the  Northern  and  Southern  States, 
concerning  the  rights  of  the  slaveholding  States,  and  especially 
their  rights  in  the  common  territory  of  the  United  States,  and 
whereas  it  is  eminently  desirable  and  proper  that  these  dissen 
sions,  which  now  threaten  the  very  existence  of  the  Union, 
should  be  permanently  quieted  and  settled  by  constitutional 
provisions  which  shall  do  equal  justice  to  all  sections,  and 
thereby  restore  to  the  people  that  peace  and  good  will  which 
ought  to  prevail  between  all  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  • 
therefore, 

"  JBesolved,  ty  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of 
the  United  States,  in  Congress  assembled,  (two-thirds  of  both 
Houses  concurring,)  that  the  following  articles  be  and  hereby 
are  proposed  and  submitted  as  amendments  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  which  shall  be  valid  to  all  intents  and  pur 
poses,  as  part  of  said  Constitution,  when  ratified  by  conventions 
of  three-fourths  of  the  several  States." 

Article  1 — Provided  for  prohibiting  slavery  north  of  36°  30' 
in  all  the  territory  now  held  or  which  may  hereafter  be  held, 
and  recognizing  it  as  existing  in  all  the  territory  south  of  that 
line,  and  for  allowing  any  territory  to  come  into  the  Union, 
when  it  has  a  sufficient  population  for  a  member  of  Congress, 
according  to  the  then  ratio  of  representation  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  other  States  either 
with  or  without  slavery,  as  the  Constitution  of  such  new  State 
shall  provide. 


230  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

Article  2 — Declares  that  Congress  shall  have  no  power  to 
abolish  slavery  in  places  under  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of 
Congress  and  within  the  limits  of  States  that  permit  the  holding 
of  slaves. 

Article  3 — Declares  that  Congress  shall  not  have  power  to 
abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia  except  on  certain 
conditions. 

Article  4 — Declares  that  Congress  shall  not  interdict  the 
transportation  of  slaves  from  one  State  to  another  where  the 
laws  permit  slavery. 

Article  5 — Declares  that  the  fugitive  slave  law  shall  be 
modified  in  such  a  manner,  that  in  case  the  owner  meets  with 
forcible  obstruction  from  people  to  the  recovery  of  his  slave,  the 
United  States  shall  pay  for  such  fugitive  slave ;  it  being  pro 
vided  that  the  county  where  this  force,  or  intimidation,  or 
rescue  takes  place,  shall  be  liable  for  the  amount  paid,  with 
authority  to  remunerate  itself  by  a  suit  against  the  rescuers  or 
wrong-doers. 

Article  6 — Provides  that  these  and  some  other  articles 
already  in  the  Constitution  shall  not  be  altered  hereafter. 

It  also  contained  certain  recommendations  in  respect  to  the 
personal  liberty  bills,  and  the  fugitive  slave  law,  and  the  slave 
trade. 

LETTERS    OF   SENATORS    BINGIIAM   AND    CHANDLER. 

WASHINGTON,  Feb.  15,  1861. 

DEAR  SIR, 

When  Virginia  proposed  a  convention  in  "Washington, 
in  reference  to  the  disturbed  condition  of  the  country,  I 
regarded  it  as  another  step  to  debauch  the  public  mind,  and  a 
step  towards  obtaining  that  concession  which  the  imperious 
slave  power  so  insolently  demands.  I  have  no  doubt,  at  pres 
ent,  that  this  was  the  design  ;  I  \vas,  therefore,  pleased  that  the 
Legislature  of  Michigan  was  not  disposed  to  put  herself  in  a 
position  to  be  controlled  by  such  influences. 

The  convention  has  met  here,  and  within  a  few  days  the 
aspect  of  things  is  materially  changed.  Every  free  State  except 
Michigan  and  "Wisconsin  is  represented,  and  we  have  been 
assured  by  friends  upon  whom  we  can  rely,  that  if  those  two 


LETTERS    OF    SENATORS    BINGHAM   AND    CHANDLER.  231 

States  should  send  delegations  of  true  unflinching  men,  there 
would  probably  be  a  majority  in  favor  of  the  Constitution  as  it 
is,  who  would  frown  down  rebellion  by  the  enforcement  of  the 
laws.  These  friends  have  recommended  the  appointment  of 
delegates  from  our  State,  and  in  compliance  with  their  request 
Mr.  CHANDLER  and  myself  telegraphed  to  you  last  night.  It 
cannot  be  doubted  that  the  recommendations  of  this  convention 
will  have  considerable  influence  upon  the  public  mind  and 
upon  the  action  of  Congress.  *  *  * 

I  have  the  honor  with  much  respect,  to  be  truly  yours, 

K.  S.  BINGHAM. 

His  Excellency,  Governor  BLAIR. 

WASHINGTON,  Feb.  11,  1861. 

MY  DEAR  GOVERNOR, 

Governor  BINGHAM  and  myself  telegraphed  to  you  on 
Saturday  at  the  request  of  Massachusetts  and  New  York,  to 
send  delegates  to  the  peace  or  compromise  congress.  They 
admit  that  we  were  right  and  they  were  wrong ;  that  no 
Eepublican  State  should  have  sent  delegates ;  but  they  are 
here  and  cannot  get  away.  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Rhode  Island 
are  caving  in,  and  there  is  danger  of  Illinois  ;  and  now  they 
beg  us,  for  God's  sake,  to  come  to  their  rescue,  and  save  the 
republican  party  from  rupture.  I  hope  you  will  send  sfiff- 
lacked  men  or  none.  The  whole  thing  was  got  up  against  my 
judgment,  and  will  end  in  thin  smoke.  Still  I  hope  as  a  mat 
ter  of  courtesy  to  some  of  our  erring  brethren,  that  you  will 
send  the  delegates. 

Truly  your  friend, 

Z.  CHANDLER. 

His  Excellency  AUSTIN  BLAIR. 

p.  S. — Some  of  the  mamifacturing  States  think  that  a  fight 
would  be  awful.  "Without  a  little  blood-letting,  this  Union  will 
not,  in  my  estimation,  be  worth  a  rush. 

The  peace  Congress  was  a  failure.  The  South,  goaded  on  by 
wrongs  real,  and  wrongs  imaginary,  was  rushing  into  secession. 
The  North  called  for  "  blood-letting."  Blood  was  forthcoming. 


232  THE  SECTIONAL  CONTROVERSY. 


REMARKS. 

1.  Causes  were  in  operation  when  Mr.  BUCHANAN  entered 
upon  his  administration,  and  during  its  continuance,  which 
raised  the  sectional  feeling,  both  North  and  South,  to  such  a 
degree  of  antagonism,  that  the  Union  of  the  States  was  ruptured 
by  the  secession  of  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama,  Missis 
sippi,  Louisiana,  and  Florida.  What  those  causes  were,  both 
proximate  and  remote,  may  be  seen  or  inferred  from  the  facts 
stated  in  the  preceding  pages.  The  sectional  character  at 
tributed  to  the  Republican  party  ;  the  opposition  to  the  DEED 
SCOTT  decision  ;  the  recommendation  by  sixty-eight  Northern 
members  of  Congress  of  Helper's  incendiary  abolition  book ; 
the  JOHN  BROWN  invasion,  and  the  sympathy  expressed  for  him 
by  Northern  communities ;  the  personal  liberty  bills  passed 
by  the  Legislatures  of  at  least  twelve  Northern  States ;  the 
declaration  of  the  Northern  dominant  party,  that  there  should 
be  no  more  slave  territory ;  the  spirit  with  which  that  party 
was  coming  into  power,  the  exclamation  of  the  victorious 
Gauls,  addressed  to  the  conquered  Romans,  vce  victis,  being 
in  their  hearts,  if  not  on  their  lips  ; — these  were  some  of  the 
proximate  causes  of  the  secession.  The  sceptre  was  departing 
from  Judah,  and  the  lawgiver  from  between  his  feet.  For 
fourteen  presidential  terms  the  candidate,  favored  by  the  South, 
had  been  elected ;  while  the  favorite  candidates  of  the  North 
had  been  elected  for  only  four  presidential  terms.  And  with 
respect  to  these  four,  who  were  the  favorite  candidates  of  the 
North,  namely,  JOHN  ADAMS,  JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS,  General 
HARRISON,  and  General  TAYLOR,  there  was  no  great  dissatisfaction 
at  the  South.  The  two  latter  were  by  birth  Southern  men,  and 
in  favor  of  protecting  Southern  institutions.  But  now,  for  the 
first  time,  an  anti-slavery  man,  Mr.  LINCOLN,  was  elected  presi 
dent  upon  an  anti-slavery  platform,  with  the  expectation  on  the 
part  of  the  electors  that  anti-slavery  men  would  "  take  possession 
of  the  Government,"  and  would  control  the  councils  of  the 
nation.  Moreover,  the  Northern  triumphant  party,  as  be 
longing  to  the  most  numerous  section,  expected  to  hold  the 
Government  in  perpetuity,  so  that  all  that  was  left  to  the  South 


REMARKS.  233 

was  to  exclaim  with  the  fallen  statesman  "Wolsey,  "  Farewell, 
a  long  farewell  to  all  my  greatness  !  " 

But  the  North  might  justly,  in  turn,  complain  against  the 
Sou tli,  on  account  of  grievances  which,  to  some  extent,  furnish 
an  apology  for  the  injuries  just  mentioned.  It  might  justly  com 
plain  that  it  had  been,  for  a  long  time,  practically  excluded  from 
its  appropriate  share  of  influence,  and  office,  and  emolument, 
in  the  administration  of  the  Federal  Government.  It  might 
say,  You  of  the  South  have  had  possession  of  the  Federal  Gov 
ernment,  with  all  its  attendant  advantages,  for  fifty-six  years 
out  of  seventy-two  ;  and  when  you  have  refused  to  admit  us  to 
an  equal  participation  in  these  advantages,  and  when  you 
have  foiled  us  again  and  again,  in  our  attempts  to  gain  the 
presidential  election,  you  must  not  think  it  strange  that  we 
should,  in  our  desperate  efforts  to  obtain  our  rights,  have  used 
means  that  would  be  unpardonable  in  other  circumstances. 
You  must  not  think  it  strange,  if  you  deprive  us  of  our  ap 
propriate  share  of  political  power,  that  we,  in  retaliation, 
should  deprive  you  of  your  appropriate  share  in  the  territories. 
You  must  not  think  it  strange  that,  if  the  slave  States  go  in  a 
solid  column  against  our  presidential  candidates,  we  should 
oppose  the  admission  of  new  slave  States.  You  must  not  think 
it  strange  that,  if  you  attempt  to  nullify  Tariff  laws,  which 
protect  our  manufacturing  property,  we  should,  by  our  personal 
liberty  bills,  nullity  your  fugitive  slave  law,  which  protects 
your  slave  property.  You  must  not  think  it  strange  that,  if 
you  attack  our  commercial  interests,  as  you  did  during  the 
administration  of  Mr.  JEFFERSON  and  of  Mr.  MADISON  ;  and  our 
manufacturing  interests,  as  you  did  during  the  administration 
of  General  JACKSON  and  of  Mr.  POLK  ;  we  should  attack  your 
interests  in  slaves.  You  must  not  think  it  strange,  if  you 
magnify  the  reserved  rights  of  the  States  and  threaten 
secession,  that  we  should  magnify  the  powers  granted  to  the 
Federal  Government,  and  threaten  military  coercion. 

2.  In  the  progress  of  years,  a  thorough  alienation  of  feeling 
had  grown  up  between  large  masses  at  the  North,  and  large 
masses  at  the  South.  Men  hate  those  whom  they  injure  as 
well  as  those  who  injure  them.  In  the  North  there  was  the 
feeling  of  contempt  mingled  with  the  hatred,  namely  contempt 


THE   SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY 

,c  supposed  imbecility  and  poverty  of  ie  South,  and  its 
idence  on  the  North  for  conveniences  ad  necessaries  of 
nanufactured  at  the  North.  There  was  Iso  a  deep  moral 
Tencc  of  Southern  men  as  Blaveholdrs,  inasmuch  as 
ry  was  supposed  to  include  in  it  "  the  sui  of  all  villanies." 
supposed  **  barbarism  of  the  South  v  finished  the  staple 
peeches,  and  newspaper  articles,  and  1  al  conversation, 
j  were  those,  and  not  a  few,  who  felt  th:  those  Southern 
irians  were  not  any  better  entitled  to  c  ual  rights  in  the 
ories,  according  to  the  guarantees  of  ie  Constitution, 

were  the  children  of  Ishmael  to  th  promises  made 
sively  to  the  seed  of  Isaac,  or  than  wer<  the  descendants 
au  to  a  share  with  the  children  of  Israeli)  the  territories 
e  Promised  Land.  In  short,  they  felt  U.t,  as  "  Saints," 
icrn  men  should  "  inherit  the  North  "  :  hat  they  should 
possession  of  the  common  territories  V  a  direct  grant 

Congress,  overriding  the  Constitution;    nd  that,  in  due 

under  a  patent  from  the  Almighty,  thcy-hould  take  pos- 
n  of  the  Southern  States,  as  fast  as  thr  could  expel  the 
unites  from  the  land. 

nd,  on  the  other  hand,  Southern  men  reaid,  if  possible, 
Northern  hatred  with  interest  ;  for  their  Ltred  was  inten- 

by  the  fear  of  those  who  politically  ha<  power  to  injure 
,  They  distrusted  men  who  claimed  to  hre  large  powers 

the  Constitution  to  injure  the  South,  vale  in  cases  in 
i  the  Constitution  expressly  protects  thenterests  of  the 
i,  they  would  place  themselves  under  tin  subterfuge  of  a 
her  law,"  in  order  to  violate  their  constutional  obliga- 
They  feared  and  distrusted  men  who  vould  thus  act 
•  the  Constitution  with  their  own  construcon  of  it,  or  the 
r  law  with  their  own  construction  of  it,  rcording  as  the 
r  the  other  would  help  to  enlarge  the  riglB  of  the  Korth, 
ossen  the  rights  of  the  South.  They  distnted,  and  feared, 
lated  men,  who,  under  a  pretence  of  the  rrht  of  petition, 
if  the  freedom  of  the  press,  and  liberty  c>  speech,  would 
V  the  floor  of  Congress  with  insults  and  sinders,  and  fill 
mil  bags  with  incendiary  publications ;  an<  send  insurrec- 
ry  apostles  of  abolitionism,  to  kindle  the  ames  of  rebel- 
u  the  South.  They  distrusted,  and  feared,  nd  hated  men, 


REMARKS.  \ 

sixty-eight  of  wh-  e  representatives  had  recommended  a  bo 
written  to  injure  Southern  institutions  protected  by  the  C 
stitution — men  wo  sympathized  with  a  convict,  and  crowr 
him  with  sepulchil  honors,  because  he  hated  slavery;  w 
thirty  years  ago.  rould  have  been  "  hung  like  a  felon,  a 
buried  like  a  do.  They  distrusted,  and  feared,  and  ha 
men,  who  ostrac:ed  and  excluded  from  office  some  of  • 
ablest  and  best  len  in  the  Northern  States,  and  put  a 
litionists  in  the!  place,  simply  upon  the  suspicion  that  1 
former  were  natiual  and  not  sectional  in  their  politics ;  TK 
had  let  loose  the:  war  dogs  to  pursue  their  great  man,  DAN 
WEBSTER,  even  iio  his  grave ;  and  who,  for  a  season,  inste 
of  allowing  miners  of  the  Gospel  to  preach  Christ  and  h 
crucified,  dumanod  that  they  "  should  preach  DOUGLAS  a 
him  damned";  il  because  they  suspected  these  two  men 
favoring  the  ui.  They  distrusted,  and  feared,  and  ha1 
men,  who  could  iid  in  passing  personal  liberty  bills,  whi 
violate  and  null'-  the  Constitution  in  one  of  its  clauses,  a 
who  can  vilify  a:i  set  at  nought  the  decision  of  the  Supre: 
Court  of  the  lined  States,  which  ^many  of  them  had  nei 
even  read. 

Senator  IVEE>N  of  Georgia,  Dec.  6,  1860,  in  the  Sena 
made  the  followig  remarks :  "  Sir,  disguise  the  fact  as  y 
will,  there  is  an  cmity  between  the  Northern  and  the  Sou 
em  people  that  i.^leep,  and  you  can  never  eradicate  it — nev 
Look  at  the  spetacle  exhibited  on  this  floor.  How  is  : 
There  are  the  Bpublican  Northern  Senators  on  that  si< 
Here  are  the  Soiuern  Senators  on  this  side.  How  much  soc 
intercourse  bet\\  m  us  ?  You  sit  on  that  side,  sullen  a 
gloomy  ;  we  sit  n  ours  with  portentous  scowls.  Yesterd 
I  observed  then  was  not  a  solitary  man  on  that  side  of  t 
chamber  came  cer  here,  even  to  extend  the  civilities  a 
courtesies  of  life  nor  did  any  of  us  go  over  there.  Here  i 
two  hostile  bodii,  on  this  floor,  and  it  is  but  a  type  of  t 
feeling  that  exis  in  the  two  sections.  We  are  enemies 
much  as  if  we  -ere  hostile  States.  I  believe  the  Northe 
people  hate  the  buth  worse  than  ever  the  English  people  hat 
France ;  and  I  en  tell  my  brethren  over  there,  that  there 

no  love  lost  on  tb  part  of  the  South. 
16 


236  THE   SECTIONAL  CONTROVERSY. 

"  In  this  state  of  feeling,  divided  as  we  are  by  interest,  by 
geographical  position,  by  every  thing  that  makes  two  people 
separate  and  distinct — I  ask,  why  should  we  remain  in  the 
same  Union  together  ?  We  have  not  lived  in  peace ;  we  are 
not  now  living  in  peace.  It  is  not  to  be  expected,  or  hoped, 
that  we  ever  shall  live  in  peace.  My  doctrine  is,  that  whenever 
man  and  wife  find  that  they  must  quarrel  and  cannot  live  in 
peace,  they  ought  to  separate ;  and  these  two  sections,  the 
North  and  the  South,  manifesting,  as  they  have  done  and  do 
now,  and  probably  ever  will  manifest,  feelings  of  hostility, 
separated  as  they  are  in  interests  and  objects — my  own  opinion 
is,  that  they  can  never  live  in  peace ;  and  the  sooner  they  sepa 
rate  the  better." 

3.  Does  the  Northern  dominant  party  desire  the  extinction 
of  slavery  in  the  Southern  States,  and  does  it  propose  to  adopt 
only  political  means  to  promote  that  extinction  ?  Senator 
SEWARD,  in  his  speech  in  Ohio,  said  :  "  Slavery  can  be  limited 
to  its  present  bounds.  It  can  be  ameliorated.  It  can  and 
must  be  abolished,  and  you  and  I  can  and  must  do  it."  Mr. 
DOUGLAS  said  of  this :  "  Every  appeal  they  make  to  Northern 
prejudice  is  against  the  institution  of  slavery  everywhere,  and 
they  would  not  be  able  to  retain  their  abolition  allies,  the  rank 
out-and-out  abolitionists,  unless  they  held  out  the  hope  that 
it  was  the  mission  of  the  Republican  party,  if  successful,  to 
abolish  slavery  in  the  States  as  well  as  territories  of  the  Union." 
They,  the  people  of  Ohio,  and  he,  a  New  Yorker,  must  abolish 
slavery  in  Virginia. 

Mr.  JOSHUA  R.  GIDDINGS  said  of  the  Helper  book  :  "  Every 
sentence  of  the  book  finds  a  response  in  the  hearts  of  all  true 
Republicans." 

Senator  SUMNER  said,  that  "  slaveholders  are  base,  false, 
•and  heedless  of  justice.  It  is  vain  to  expect  that  men,  who 
had  screwed  themselves  up  to  become  the  propagandists  of 
this  enormity,  will  be  restrained  by  any  compromise,  compact, 
bargain,  or  plighted  faith.  As  the  less  is  contained  in  the 
greater,  so  there  is  no  vileness  of  dishonesty,  no  denial  of 
human  rights,  that  is  not  plainly  involved  in  the  support  of 
an  institution,  which  begins  by  changing  men,  created  in  the 
image  of  God,  into  a  chattel,  and  sweeps  little  children  away  to 


REMARKS.  237 

the  auction  block."     How  strangely  is  this  in  contrast  to  the 
language  of  another  Massachusetts  Senator ! 

In  1835,  at  a  meeting  in  Faneuil  Hall,  HARRISON  GREY  OTIS, 
in  reference  to  anti-slavery  associations,  said  "  that  almost  all 
the  epithets  of  vituperation  which  the  language  affords,  have 
been  applied  to  slaveholders  and  their  principles — to  the 
principles  of  WASHINGTON,  and  JEFFERSON,  and  MADISON,  and 
the  RUTLEDGES,  and  the  PINCKNEYS  ;  and  the  thousands  of  other 
great  and  estimable  persons  who  have  held,  or  who  yet  hold 
slaves."  He  pointed  to  the  portraits  of  HANCOCK  and  WASH 
INGTON,  which  hung  in  the  Hall,  and  said  : 

"  Let  us  imagine  an  interview  between  them,  in  the  com 
pany  of  friends,  just  after  one  had  signed  the  commission  of 
the  other ;  and,  in  ruminating  on  the  lights  and  shadows  of 
futurity,  HANCOCK  should  have  said  :  I  congratulate  my  country 
on  the  choice  she  has  made,  and  I  foresee,  that  the  laurels  you 
gained  in  the  field  of  Braddock's  defeat,  will  be  twined  with 
those  which  will  be  earned  by  you  in  the  war  of  Independence ; 
yet,  such  are  the  prejudices  in  my  part  of  the  Union  against 
slavery,  that  although  your  name  and  services  may  secure  you 
from  apprehension  during  your  life,  yet  your  countrymen,  when 
the  willows  weep  over  your  tomb,  will  be  branded  by  mine 
as  man-stealers  and  murderers ;  and  the  stain  consequently 
annexed  to  your  memory  !  Would  not  such  a  prophecy  have 
been  imputed  to  a  brain  disturbed,  and  its  accomplishment 
regarded  as  a  chimera  ?  " 

And  yet  such  a  prophecy  has  been  verified  to  a  wide  extent, 
not  only  in  Massachusetts,  but  in  the  North  generally.  Much 
that  is  uttered  in  conversation,  in  political  speeches,  in  sermons, 
and  in  public  prayers,  can  be  accounted  for  only  on  the  suppo 
sition  that  there  are  large  classes  of  men  who  desire  the 
abolition  of  slavery  in  the  States,  as  well  as  its  exclusion  from 
the  territories,  and  that,  if  they  had  the  political  power,  they 
would  not  scruple  to  use  it  for  the  attainment  of  both  of  those 
objects,  whatever  should  be  the  consequences  to  the  South. 

4.  Southern  prejudices. — As  early  as  1671,  these  prejudices 
existed.  At  that  time,  Sir  WILLIAM  BERKLEY,  Governor  of 
Virginia,  stated  "  that  the  Navigation  Act  cutting  off  all  trade 
with  foreign  countries  was  very  injurious  to  them,  (the  Vir- 


r 
238  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

ginians,)  as  they  were  obedient  to  the  laws.  And  this  is  the 
cause  why  no  great  or  small  vessels  are  built  here,  for  we  are 
obedient  to  the  laws,  while  the  New  England  men  trade  to 
every  place  that  their  interests  lead  them." 

Mr.  J.  TAYLOR,  in  the  Convention  assembled  to  ratify  the 
Constitution  in  North  Carolina,  said :  "  We  plainly  see  that 
men  that  come  from  New  England  are  different  from  us ;  they 
are  ignorant  of  our  situation ;  they  do  not  know  the  state  of 
our  country.  They  cannot  legislate  for  us." 

Many  Southern  statesmen  have  been  under  the  impression, 
that  the  Northern  States  have  very  little  reverence  for  the  Con 
stitution,  and  that  they  would  be  very  ready  to  enlarge  or 
diminish  its  powers,  if,  by  so  doing,  they  could  advance  -  their 
own  material  interests,  and  their  own  political  power ;  that 
under  the  pretence  of  advancing  the  "  general  welfare,"  they 
would  sacrifice  the  vested  rights  of  the  South  ;  that  under  the 
pretence  of  promoting  "  the  greatest  good  of  the  greatest  num 
ber,"  they  would  violate  sacred  compacts  ;  that  from  their  greed 
of  money  and  their  greed  of  political  power,  they  are  ready  to 
sacrifice  honor  and  duty  to  self-interest,  and  that  they  love 
negroes  only  because  they  hate  their  masters. 

5.  "Was  the  new  Confederacy  or  Union  expected  to  be  per 
manent  ?  The  Union  of  the  Old  England  Colonies  established 
in  1643,  though  solemnly  declared  in  the  Constitution  to  be 
"  perpetual,"  was  dissolved.  The  Union,  under  the  British 
Constitution,  of  the  Colonies  with  the  mother  country,  which 
was  supposed  to  be  organic,  and  claimed  to  be  perpetual,  was 
dissolved.  The  Union  formed  by  the  Federal  Constitution,  or 
"  Articles  of  Confederation  and  Perpetual  Union,"  and  which 
was  in  that  instrument  solemnly  declared  to  be  perpetual,  was 
dissolved. 

Was  the  new  Union,  like  those  three  Unions,  expected  to 
be  dissolved  and  pass  away  ? 

The  States  were  familiar  with  the  idea,  that  "  Governments 
derive  their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed,"  and 
that  "  when  any  form  of  Government  becomes  destructive  of 
the  ends  for  which  it  was  established,  it  is  the  right  of  the 
people  to  alter  or  to  abolish  it,  and  institute  a  new  Government." 
By  an  article  in  the  new  Constitution,  "  the  ratification  of  the 


EEMAEKS.  239 

Convention  of  nine  States  shall  be  sufficient  for  the  estab 
lishment  of  this  Constitution  between  the  States  ratifying  the 
same ;  "  thus  justifying  the  doctrine,  that  nine  States  might 
secede  from  the  remaining  four,  notwithstanding  the  article  in 
the  old  Constitution,  namely,  "  And  the  Articles  of  this  Con 
federation  shall  be  inviolably  observed  by  every  State,  and  the 
Union  shall  be  perpetual ;  nor  shall  any  alteration  at  any  time 
hereafter  be  made  in  any  of  them,  unless  such  alteration  be 
agreed  to  in  a  Congress  of  the  United  States,  and  be  afterwards 
confirmed  by  the  Legislatures  of  every  State." 

In  the  new  Constitution  there  is  no  declaration  that  the 
Union  shall  be  perpetual,  no  promise  on  the  part  of  the  States 
to  abide  in  it,  and  no  power  delegated  to  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  to  retain  them  in  it  by  force.  Will  they  stay  in  it  ? 

Many  of  the  fathers  had  their  fears  and  misgivings.  Even 
WASHINGTON  hardly  dared  to  look  into  the  future.  "  Let  ex 
perience,"  said  he,  "  solve  the  question.  To  look  to  speculation 
in  such  a  case  were  criminal."  He  evidently  feared  to  reason 
on  the  subject,  lest  he  should  be  carried  to  the  conclusion, 
that  the  Union  could  not  be  preserved,  however  much  he 
loved  it. 

JOHN  ADAMS  expected  the  dissolution  of  the  Union.  "The 
Rev.  Mr.  COFFIN  of  New  England,  who  is  now  here  soliciting 
donations  for  a  College  in  Greene  County,  Tennessee,  tells  me 
that  when  he  first  determined  to  engage  in  this  enterprise,  he 
wrote  a  letter  recommendatory  of  the  enterprise,  which  he 
meant  to  get  signed  by  clergymen,  and  a  similar  one  for  per 
sons  of  a  civil  character,  at  the  head  of  which  he  wished  to 
have  Mr.  ADAMS  to  put  his  name,  he  being  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  and  the  application  going  only  for  his  name, 
and  not  for  a  donation.  Mr.  ADAMS,  after  reading  the  paper, 
and  considering,  said  he  saw  no  possibility  of  continuing  the 
Union  of  the  States ;  that  their  dissolution  must  necessarily 
take  place  ;  that  he  therefore  saw  no  propriety  in  recommend 
ing  to  New  England  men  to  promote  an  institution  in  the 
South ;  that  it  was,  in  fact,  giving  strength  to  those  who  were 
to  be  their  enemies,  and  therefore  he  would  have  nothing  to  do 
with  it."— JEFFERSON'S  WOKKS,  Dec.  13,  1803. 

In  the  following  letter  to  Mr.  HOLMES,  of  Maine,  April  22, 


240  THE   SECTIONAL  CONTROVERSY. 

1820,  Mr.  JEFFERSON  makes  known  his  own  views :  "  I  thank 
you,  dear  sir,  for  the  copy  you  were  so  kind  as  to  send  me  of 
the  letter  to  your  constituents,  on  the  Missouri  question.  It  is 
a  perfect  justification  to  them.  I  had,  for  a  long  time,  ceased 
to  read  the  newspapers,  or  pay  any  attention  to  public  affairs, 
confident  that  they  were  in  good  hands,  and  content  to  be  a 
passenger  in  our  boat  to  the  shore  from  which  I  am  not  far 
distant.  But  this  momentous  question,  like  a  fire-bell  in  the 
night,  awakened  and  filled  me  with  terror.  I  considered  it  at 
once  as  the  knell  of  the  Union.  It  is  hushed,  indeed,  for  the 
moment,  but  this  is  a  reprieve  only,  not  a  final  sentence.  A 
geographical  line  coinciding  with  a  marked  principle,  moral 
and  political,  and  conceived  and  held  up  ~by  the  angry  passions 
of  men,  will  never  le  obliterated,  and  every  new  irritation  will 
make  it  deeper  and  deeper.  *  *  I  regret,  now,  to  die  in  the 
belief  that  the  useless  sacrifice  of  themselves  by  the  generation 
of  1TY6,  to  acquire  self-government  and  happiness  to  their 
country,  is  to  be  thrown  away  by  the  unwise  passions  of  their 
sons,  and  that  my  only  consolation  is  to  be,  that  I  do  not  live 
to  weep  over  it." 

Many  patriotic  statesmen,  like  WASHINGTON,  and  ADAMS,  and 
JEFFERSON,  have  looked  with  fear  and  trembling  into  the  future 
condition  of  these  States.  They  w^ere  apprehensive  that  the 
original  thirteen  States  were  too  extensive  for  one  Government. 
"What  would  they  have  said  of  the  magnitude  of  the  thirty-four 
States  united  in  one  Confederacy  ?  Suis  et  ipsa  Roma  viribus 
ruit. 

But  there  are  other  considerations  on  this  subject  that  have 
attracted  the  attention  of  another  class  of  men.  COLERIDGE,  in 
his  Table  Talk,  1833,  p.  201,  says :  "  Can  there  be  any  thor 
ough  national  fusion  of  the  Northern  and  the  Southern  States  ? 
I  think  not.  The  fact  is,  the  Union  will  be  shaken  almost 
to  dislocation,  whenever  a  very  serious  question  between  the 
States  arises.  The  American  Union  has  no  centre,  and  it  is 
impossible  to  make  one.  The  more  they  extend  their  borders 
into  the  Indian  land,  the  weaker  will  the  national  cohesion  be. 
I  look  upon  the  States  as  splendid  masses  to  be  used  by-and-by 
in  the  composition  of  two  or  three  Governments." 

A  Russian  writer,  IVAN  GOLOVIN,  remarked  in  1856  :  "  A 


BEMARKS. 

visit  to  the  United  States  has  the  strange  property  of  cooling 
democrats.  Again,  I  tell  you,  the  manifest  destiny  of  the 
States  is  disunion.  I  do  not  give  the  Union  eight  years 
to  last." 

ALEXANDER  HAMILTON  speaks  of  the  new  Constitution,  when 
it  was  before  the  country  for  adoption,  in  the  following  terms  : 

"  If  the  Government  be  adopted,  it  is  probable  General 
WASHINGTON  will  be  the  President  of  the  United  States.  This 
will  insure  a  wise  choice  of  men  to  administer  the  Government, 
and  a  good  administration.  A  good  administration  will  con 
ciliate  the  confidence  and  affections  of  the  people,  and  perhaps 
enable  the  Government  to  acquire  more  consistency  than  the 
proposed  Constitution  seems  to  promise  for  so  great  a  country. 
It  may  thus  triumph  altogether  over  the  State  Governments ',  and 
reduce  them  to  an  entire  subordination,  dividing  the  larger 
States  into  smaller  districts.  The  organs  of  the  General  Gov 
ernment  may  also  acquire  additional  strength. 

"  If  this  should  not  be  the  case,  in  the  course  of  a  few  years, 
it  is  probable  that  the  contests  about  the  boundaries  of  power 
between  the  particular  Governments  and  the  General  Gov 
ernment  and  the  momentum  of  the  larger  States,  will  produce 
a  dissolution  of  the  Union.  This,  after  all,  seems  to  le  the 
most  likely  result" 

BENJAMIN  HARRISON,  father  of  President  HARRISON,  in  a 
letter  to  Gen.  WASHINGTON,  1787,  says  :  "  I  cannot  divest  myself 
of  the  opinion,  that  the  seeds  of  civil  discord  are  plentifully 
sown  in  very  many  of  the  powers,  given  both  to  the  President 
and  the  Congress  ;  and  if  the  Constitution  is  carried  into  effect, 
the  States  south  of  the  Potomac  will  be  little  more  than  ap 
pendages  to  those  northward." 

In  the  progress  of  time  the  seeds  of  civil  discord  germinated. 
Causes  became  apparent  that  threatened  the  dissolution  of  the 
Union. 

WASHINGTON,  in  his  letter  to  ALEXANDER  HAMILTON,  July 
27,  1792,  says  :  "  On  my  way  home,  and  since  my  arrival  here, 
I  have  endeavored  to  learn  from  sensible,  moderate  men,  known 
friends  of  the  Government,  the  sentiments  that  are  entertained 
of  public  measures.  These  all  agree  that  the  country  is  pros 
perous  and  happy,  but  they  seem  to  be  alarmed  at  that  system 


24:2  THE   SECTIONAL  CONTROVERSY. 

of  policy,  and  those  interpretations  of  the  Constitution,  which 
have  taken  place  in  Congress."  These  interpretations  tended 
to  enlarge  the  powers  of  the  General  Government,  as  was  sup 
posed,  at  the  expense  of  State  rights. 

There  were  men  all  along,  from  the  days  of  WASHINGTON  to 
the  present  time,  who  understood  the  danger  of  disunion,  and 
endeavored  to  avoid  the  causes  that  would  produce  it.  They 
were  prescient  of  the  future,  and  saw  events  in  their  causes. 

In  1849,  ROBERT  E.  SCHENCK,  member  from  Dayton,  Ohio, 
said  :  "  If  we  of  the  Northern  States  will  not  vote  for  a  South 
ern  man,  merely  because  he  is  a  Southern  man,  and  men  of  the 
South  will  not  vote  for  a  Northern  man,  merely  because  he  is 
a  Northern  man,  and  if  that  principle  is  to  be  carried  out  in  all 
our  national  politics  and  elections,  what  must  be  the  result  ? 
Disunion.  THAT  ITSELF  is  DISUNION.  You  may  disguise  and 
cover  it  up  as  you  please,  but  that  it  will  be.  It  may  be  re 
garded  as  but  the  first  step  in  disunion,  but  its  consequences 
follow  as  inevitably  as  fate.  One  section — the  North  or  the 
South — must  always  have  the  majority.  Disfranchise  all  upon 
the  other  side,  and  the  Union  could  not  hold  together  a  day  ;  it 
ought  not  to  hold  together  upon  such  conditions  a  day" 

On  the  other  hand,  from  the  first,  there  wrere  those  who 
never  indulged  any  fears  of  secession  and  disunion.  They  were, 
indeed,  inclined  to  ridicule  the  fears  of  others  as  entirely  ground 
less,  in  words  like  these :  "  The  Southern  States  cannot  be 
kicked  out  of  the  Union,  and  if  they  were  inclined  to  go  out, 
the  North  would  not  let  them  go.  All  the  threats  and  all  the 
fears  of  disunion  are  as  wild  as  the  visions  of  Southern  fanatics 
and  the  dreams  of  Northern  Union-savers.  They  are  all  got  up 
for  political  effect,  and  to  carry  on  elections  by  frightening 
weak-minded  Union-savers." 

6.  Meaning  of  certain  Terms. — STATES.  The  word  State, 
says  Mr.  MADISON,  sometimes  means  territory  occupied  by  a 
political  society ;  sometimes  the  Government  established  by 
that  society ;  sometimes  the  people  composing  that  society  in 
their  highest  sovereign  capacity.  It  is  used  in  this  last  sense 
when  it  is  said  that  the  State,  or  States,  ratified  the  Constitu 
tion  or  acceded  to  the  Constitution.  The  people  ratified  the 


KEMARKS.  243 

Constitution  as  the  act  of  the  State.  Thus  each  State,  acting 
by  itself,  and  for  itself,  in  Convention,  became  a  party  to  the 
constitutional  compact.  It  should  be  added,  that  the  term 
State  replaced  the  term  colony,  which  was  in  use  before  the 
Declaration  of  Independence. 

The  States  made  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  each 
State  acting  for  itself,  and  each  State  becoming  "  free  and  inde 
pendent."  The  States  formed  the  articles  of  Confederation, 
each  State  still  retaining  its  sovereignty  as  to  all  that  was  not 
"delegated.  The  States  formed  the  present  Constitution.  "  The 
Convention  which  formed  it,  was  called  by  a  portion  of  the 
States  ;  its  members  were  all  appointed  by  the  States  ;  received 
their  authority  from  the  separate  States  ;  voted  by  States  in 
forming  the  Constitution,  transmitted  it  to  Congress  to  be  sub 
mitted  to  the  States  for  their  ratification  ;  it  was  ratified  by  the 
people  of  each  State  in  Convention,  each  ratifying  by  itself  and 
for  itself,  and  bound  exclusively  by  its  own  ratification  ;  and  by 
express  provision  it  was  not  to  go  into  operation  unless  nine 
out  of  twelve  States  should  ratify,  and  then  binding  only  be 
tween  the  States  ratifying.  Any  four  States,  great  or  small, 
could  have  defeated  its  adoption." 

ROGER  SHERMAN  and  OLIVER  ELLSWORTH,  in  their  letter  to 
Governor  HUNTINGTON,  say  :  "  We  wish  it,  the  Constitution,  may 
meet  with  the  approbation  of  the  several  States,  and  be  a  means 
of  securing  their  rights,  and  lengthening  out  their  tranquillity." 

The  States  retained  their  sovereignty  for  the  reason  that  it 
was  not  delegated  to  the  Constitution.  In  the  case  of  the  Bank 
of  Augusta  vs.  Earle,  13  Peters'  Reports,  p.  590,  it  was  decided 
by  the  Supreme  Court  that  the  "  rules  of  international  law 
apply  to  the  States  inter  se,  and  the  Chief  Justice  declared  that 
they  are  sovereign  States.  The  Constitution  was  a  Federal 
compact,  done  in  Convention,  by  the  unanimous  consent  of  the 
States  present." 

Judge  CHASE,  of  the  Superior  Court  of  the  United  States,  in 
Dallas'  Reports,  p.  199,  says :  "  I  consider  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  as  a  declaration,  not  that  the  United  Colonies 
jointly,  in  a  collective  capacity,  were  independent  States,  but 
that  each  of  them  was  an  independent  State."  It  asserts  the 
separate  and  individual  independence,  freedom,  and  sovereignty 


244:  THE  SECTIONAL  CONTROVERSY. 

of  each  of  the  thirteen  States.     The  treaty  with  Great  Britain 
recognizes  the  sovereignty  of  each  State  by  name. 

UNITED  STATES. — This  term  replaced  the  term  "  United 
Colonies,"  on  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  The  use  of 
the  term  United  Colonies  did  not  annul  the  separate  distinc 
tive  rights  of  the  Colonies.  The  use  of  the  term  United  States 
does  not  annul  the  separate  distinctive  rights  of  the  States, 
whether  before  the  adoption  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation, 
or  after  the  adoption  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  or  after 
the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution.  The  word  "  United," 
used  in  these  four  different  sets  of  circumstances,  does  not 
imply  that  the  Colonies  or  the  States  were  one  people,  in  the 
sense  in  which  a  colony  or  a  State  is  one,  but  only  that  the 
several  Colonies  before  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and 
the  several  States  before  the  adoption  of  the  Articles  of  Con 
federation,  and  after  their  adoption,  and  after  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution,  united  for  certain  purposes  and  in  certain 
respects. 

In  the  minds  of  the  framers  and  friends  of  the  Constitution, 
the  plural  idea  was  the  ruling  idea  in  the  use  of  the  term 
"  United  States."  The  term  was  equivalent  to  the  "  States  of 
the  Union."  Thus  General  WASHINGTON,  in  his  reply  to  CORN- 
PLANTER  :  "  The*  United  States  desire  to  be  the  friends  of  the 
Indians."  "  The  United  States  will  be  true  and  faithful  to 
their  engagements." 

But  in  the  minds  of  foreigners,  and  those  ignorant  of  the 
structure  of  our  Government,  the  singular  idea  is  attached  to 
the  term.  They  sometimes  say,  "  the  United  States  is  able  to 
take  care  of  itself." 

In  the  Convention  of  Virginia,  which  ratified  the  Constitu 
tion,  PATRICK  HENRY  objected  to  the  words,  "  We,  the  people 
of  the  United  States,"  lest  it  might  be  supposed  that  it  meant 
the  inhabitants  of  all  the  States  as  one  homogeneous  mass  or 
aggregate.  But  Mr.  MADISON  replied,  "  The  parties  to  it  are  to 
be  the  people,  but  not  the  people  as  composing  one  great  society, 
but  the  people  as  composing  thirteen  sovereignties"  The  acces 
sion  or  adoption  was  the  separate  act  of  the  people  of  each 
State,  quite  independent  of  the  people  of  any  other  State.  And 


REMARKS.  245 

the  articles  at  the  end  are  declared  to  be  "  done  in  Convention 
by  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  States  present." 

PEOPLE. — This  term  was  used  in  application  to  the  indi 
viduals  who  composed  a  separate  Colony  or  a  separate  State. 
"  The  good  people  of  these  Colonies,"  meant  the  good  people  in 
the  several  Colonies.  It  meant  those  for  whom  the  delegates 
severally  acted,  and  it  did  not  mean  those  people  in  the  aggre 
gate.  The  several  peoples  represented  in  the  Convention  acted 
by  their  respective  delegates.  Thus,  the  people  of  Connecticut 
acted  for  themselves  by  their  delegates  ROGER  S HERMAN,  SAM 
UEL  HuNTINGTON,  WlLLIAM  WlLLIAMS,  OLIVER  WoLCOTT.  In 

the  Articles  of  Confederation,  the  following  phrases  are  em 
ployed  :  u  among  the  people  of  the  different  States " ;  "  and 
the  people  of  each  State  " ;  "  their  own  people,"  that  is,  the 
people  of  the  respective  States.  In  the  Constitution  the  word 
"  people  "  is  used  only  for  reference  to  the  inhabitants  of  the 
several  States,  or  portions  of  the  same,  and  in  no  case  for  the 
collective  inhabitants  of  all  the  States  in  the  aggregate.  It  is 
applied  to  those  who  were  accustomed  to  act  together  under 
State  authority ,  at  a  particular  time  or  place,  or  to  portions  of 
them.  Thus,  "  The  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States 
by  the  Constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  are  re. 
served  to  the  States  or  to  the  people,"  (that  is,  to  the  people  of 
the  States.)  In  the  phrase,  "  We,  the  people  of  the  United 
States,"  there  is  an  equivalent  for  we,  the  people  of  New 
Hampshire,  and  the  people  of  Massachusetts,  &c.  The  articles 
of  the  Constitution  was  a  compact  "  between  the  States  ratify 
ing  the  same."  The  "  style  "  of  the  Federal  Union  in  the  new 
Constitution  was  borrowed  from  the  old,  namely,  the  Articles 
of  Confederation,  and  has  the  same  meaning. 

The  reason  why  the  Constitution  was  submitted  to  the 
people  of  each  State,  and  not  to  the  several  Legislatures,  was 
because  it  was  apprehended  that  the  latter  would  oppose  it. 
Said  WILSON  :  "  I  know  that  they,  the  Legislatures  and  the 
State  officers,  will  oppose  it ;  I  am  for  carrying  it  to  the  people 
of  each  State."  The  ratification  was  the  act  of  each  State,  and 
not  of  the  Federal  Government,  which  then  had  no  existence, 
or  of  the  aggregate  people  under  that  Government. 


24:6  THE   SECTIONAL  CONTROVERSY. 

Massachusetts,  in  Convention,  in  ratifying  the  "  new  Constitu 
tion,"  speaks  of  the  "  rights  of  the  people,"  that  is,  the  people 
of  the  several  States  ;  and  also  uses  the  language,  "  in  the  name 
and  by  the  authority  of  the  people  of  this  Commonwealth." 
"  The  freedom  of  the  people,"  was  understood  to  mean  the  free 
dom  or  the  rights  of  the  States,  or  of  the  people  of  the  States, 
in  distinction  from  the  granted  rights  or  powers  of  the  Federal 
Government. 

CONSTITUTION. — The  people  in  the  Colonies  were  under  the 
BRITISH  CONSTITUTION. 

A  CONSTITUTION  was  framed  in  1643  by  the  colonies  of 
Massachusetts,  Plymouth,  Connecticut,  and  New  Haven.  It 
was  composed  of  twelve  articles.  The  first  fixes  the  name, 
"  The  United  Colonies  of  New  England."  Second  :  "  The  said 
United  Colonies,  for  themselves  and  their  posterity,  do  jointly 
and  severally  enter  into  a  firm  and  perpetual  leagve  of  friend 
ship  and  amity,  for  offence  and  defence,  mutual  advice  and 
succor  upon  all  just  occasions,  for  their  mutual  safety  and 
general  welfare." 

Besides  State  Constitutions,  the  people  of  the  Colonies, 
when  they  became  "  free  and  independent  States,"  through 
their  Legislatures  formed  a  Constitution  under  which  they 
could  act  for  specific  purposes  set  forth  in  that  instrument. 
This  was  familiarly  known  as  "  the  Articles  of  Confedera 
tion,"  though  it  was  also  denominated  the  "  FEDERAL  CON 
STITUTION,"  in  popular  language,  in  the  acts  of  the  States, 
and  in  the  Convention  assembled  to  revise  it.  Thus,  Mas 
sachusetts,  in  the  appointment  of  delegates  to  the  Conven 
tion  which  formed  the  "  new  Constitution,"  uses  the  term 
"  Federal  Constitution "  as  equivalent  to  "  the  Articles  of 
Confederation." 

It  was  solemnly  ratified  by  all  the  Legislatures,  and  declared 
to  be  of  perpetual  obligation.  "  And  the  Articles  of  this  Con 
federation  shall  be  inviolably  observed  by  every  State,  and  the 
Union  shall  be  perpetual.  Nor  shall  any  alteration,  at  any 
time  hereafter,  be  made  in  any  of  them,  unless  such  altera 
tion  be  agreed  to  in  a  Congress  of  the  United  States,  and  be 
afterwards  confirmed  by  the  Legislature  of  every  State." 


EEMAEKS.  24:7 

It  is  not  strange  that  LUTHER  MAETIN  should  express  the 
following  reprobation  of  the  violation  of  federal  obligation  by 
forming  a  new  Constitution  in  1787 :  "  Will  you  tell  us  that 
we  ought  to  trust  you  because  you  now  enter  into  a  solemn 
compact  with  us  ?  This  you  have  done  before,  and  now  treat 
with  the  utmost  contempt.  Will  you  now  make  an  appeal  to 
the  Supreme  Being,  and  call  on  Him  to  guarantee  your  ob 
servance  of  this  compact  ?  The  same  you  have  formerly  done 
for  your  observance  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  which 
you  are  now  violating  in  the  most  wanton  manner.  The  same 
reason  which  you  now  urge  for  destroying  our  present  Federal 
Government,  may  be  urged  for  abolishing  the  system,  which 
you  now  propose  to  adopt." 

It  should  be  kept  in  mind,  that  sectional  views  of  the  Con 
stitution  had  an  influence  in  producing  a  sectional  policy  in  the 
administration  of  the  Government.  The  South^  from  the  start, 
favored  a  strict  construction  of  the  Constitution.  The  leading 
statesmen  of  that  section,  from  THOMAS  JEFFEESON  to  JEFFEESOX 
DAVIS,  generally  inquired  for  the  "  enumerated  powers,"  and 
the  "  delegated  powers "  contained  in  the  Constitution,  and 
insisted  that  federal  action  must  be  carefully  limited  by  these 
powers.  And  if,  in  any  case,  the  action  of  the  Federal  Govern 
ment,  in  any  of  its  branches,  should  go  outside  of  these  "  granted 
powers,"  to  usurp  the  powers  reserved  to  the  States,  it  is  then 
null  and  void,  because  unconstitutional. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  North  has  been  inclined  to  a  broad 
construction  of  the  Constitution.  The  leading  statesmen  of 
that  section,  from  ALEXANDEE  HAMILTON  to  DANIEL  WEBSTEE, 
generally  were  disposed  to  magnify  the  "  granted  powers," 
though  at  the  expense  of  the  powers  reserved  to  the  States. 

To  these  general  statements  there  are  many  exceptions,  both 
in  the  North  and  the  South. 

Is  a  national  bank  constitutional  ?  The  Southern  statesman 
examines  the  Constitution,  and  finding  no  grant  of  power  to 
Congress  to  establish  such  a  bank,  therefore  pronounces  the 
establishment  of  a  bank  unconstitutional.  A  Northern  states 
man,  on  the  other  hand,  while  he  acknowledges  that  the  Con 
stitution  contains  no  express  grant  of  power  to  Congress  to 
establish  a  bank  or  any  corporation,  says  that,  inasmuch  as  a 


24:8  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

bank  would  be  convenient  or  appropriate  for  carrying  into 
operation  other  grants  of  power,  it  is  therefore  constitutional. 

Are  internal  improvements  constitutional?  On  the  same 
grounds  as  in  the  other  case,  the  Southern  statesman  says  no, 
the  Northern  yes. 

Are  high  tariffs  for  protection  constitutional  ?  On  the  same 
ground  as  before  the  Southern  statesmen  say  no,  inasmuch  as 
the  Constitution  empowers  Congress  to  lay  duties  for  revenue, 
but  not  for  protection  or  prohibition.  The  Northern  statesmen 
say  yes ;  because,  as  they  judge,  they  are  "  necessary "  in 
order  to  promote  the  "  general  welfare,"  or  at  least  the  welfare 
of  their  section  of  the  country. 

[Mr.  JEFFERSON  to  Mr.  GILES,] 

"  MONTICELLO,  Dec.  25, 1825. 

u  I  see  as  you  do,  and  with  the  deepest  affliction,  the  rapid 
strides  with  which  the  federal  branch  of  our  Government  is 
advancing  towards  the  usurpation  of  all  the  rights  reserved  to 
the  States,  and  the  consolidation  in  itself  of  all  power,  foreign 
and  domestic  ;  and  that,  too,  by  constructions  which,  if  legiti 
mate,  leave  no  limits  to  their  power.  Take  together  the  de 
cisions  of  the  Federal  Courts,  the  doctrines  of  the  President, 
(J.  Q.  ADAMS,)  and  the  misconstructions  of  the  constitutional 
compact  acted  on  by  the  legislation  of  the  federal  branch,  and 
it  is  but  too  evident  that  the  three  ruling  branches  of  this  de 
partment,  are  in  combination  to  strip  their  colleagues,  the  State 
authorities,  of  the  powers  reserved  to  them ;  and  to  exercise 
themselves  all  functions,  foreign  and  domestic.  *  And 
what  is  our  resource  for  the  preservation  of  the  Constitution  ? 
Keason  and  argument  ?  You  might  as  well  reason  and  argue 
with  the  marble  columns  encircling  them.  The  representatives 
chosen  by  ourselves  ?  They  are  found  in  the  combination,  some 
from  incorrect  views  of  government,  some  from  corrupt  ones, 
sufficient,  voting  together,  to  outnumber  the  sound  party,  and 
with  majorities  only  of  one,  two,  or  three,  bold  enough  to  go 
forward  in  defiance. 

Mr.  MADISON  declared  "  that  the  divergence  between  us 
(Colonel  HAMILTON  and  myself)  took  place  from  his  wishing  to 
administration,  or  rather  to  administer  the  Government  (these 


REMARKS. 

were  Mr.  MADISON'S  very  words)  into  what  lie  thought  it  ought 
to  be  ;  while,  on  my  part,  I  endeavored  to  make  it  conform  to 
the  Constitution,  as  understood  by  the  Convention  that  pro 
duced  and  recommended  it,  and  particularly  by  the  State  Con 
ventions  that  adopted  it." 

FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT. — The  word  Federal  is  derived  fron\. 
the  Latin  word  fcedus,  a  league  or  compact.  Ours  is  a 
Federal  Government,  as  appears  from  the  recommendation  of 
Congress,  1787  :  "  Resolved,  that  in  the  opinion  of  Congress, 
it  is  expedient  that,  on  the  second  Monday  of  May  next,  a  Con 
vention  of  delegates,  who  shall  have  been  appointed  by  the 
several  States,  be  held  at  Philadelphia,  for  the  sole  and  express 
purpose  of  revising  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  and  reporting 
to  Congress  and  the  several  Legislatures,  such  alterations  and 
provisions  therein  as  shall,  when  agreed  to  in  Congress  and 
confirmed  by  the  States,  render  the  Federal  Constitution  ade 
quate  to  the  exigencies  of  the  Government  and  the  preservation 
of  the  Union.  "With  this  the  commissions  from  the  States  to 
the  delegates  corresponded.  So  intent  were  the  Conventions 
upon  making  a  Federal  and  not  a  consolidated  Government, 
that,  at  the  motion  of  Mr.  ELLSWORTH,  the  term  "  national  Gov 
ernment  "  was  by  an  unanimous  vote  struck  out  from  the  Con 
stitution,  and  instead  of  it  the  "  Government  of  the  United 
States  "  was  substituted.  It  is  in  its  origin  and  nature  Federal, 
having  been  framed  by  the  States  as  parties,  and  depending  for 
its  existence  on  the  action  of  the  States. 

The  letter  addressed  to  Congress  by  General  "WASHINGTON, 
President  of  the  Convention,  and  agreed  to  by  that  body,  by 
paragraphs,  speaks  of  the  "  Federal  Government  of  these  States" 
and  not  of  a  national  Government.  The  word  Federal  indicates 
that  the  Constitution  is  a  compact  between  the  States.  The 
term  "  national  Government "  is  used  in  a  popular  sense. 

ACCEDE. — Mr.  WEBSTER,  in  his  speech,  Feb.  16,  1833,  said, 
in  regard  to  the  first  resolution  of  Mr.  CALHOUN,  which  declares 
that  the  several  States  u  acceded  "  to  the  Constitution  or  con 
stitutional  compact,  "  that  the  word  accede  is  not  found  in  the 
Constitution  itself,  or  in  the  ratification  of  it  by  any  of  the 


250  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

States.  The  natural  converse  of  accession  is  secession,  and 
therefore,  when  it  is  stated  that  the  people  of  the  States  acceded 
to  the  Union,  it  may  more  plausibly  be  argued  that  they  may 
secede  from  it.  If,  in  adopting  the  Constitution,  nothing  was 
done  but  acceding  to  a  compact,  nothing  would  seem  to  be 
necessary  in  order  to  break  it  up,  but  to  secede  from  the  same 
compact.  But  the  term  is  wholly  out  of  place" 

The  first  resolution  of  Mr.  CALHOUN  is  in  the  following 
words  :  "  Resolved,  that  the  people  of  the  several  States,  com 
posing  these  United  States,  are  united  as  parties  to  a  CQJistitu- 
tional  compact,  to  which  the  people  of  each  State  acceded  as  a 
separate  and  sovereign  community,  each  binding  itself  by  its  own 
particular  ratification ;  and  that  the  Union,  of  which  the  said  com 
pact  is  the  bond,  is  a  Union  between  the  States  ratifying  the  same." 

Is  Mr.  WEBSTER  right  in  this  declaration,  that  this  term  is 
wholly  out  of  place  ?  Was  Mr.  CALHOUN  wrong  in  the  use  of 
the  term  ? 

FRANKLIN  says,  vol.  x.,  351,  "An  eighth  State  has  since 
acceded" 

"  The  influence  of  each  accession  to  the  Constitution  on  the 
remaining  States  might  be  considerable."  G.  T.  CURTIS,  His. 
Con.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  529. 

The  Governor  of  Rhode  Island,  1780,  says :  "  Our  not 
having  acceded  to  or  adopted  the  new  system  of  Government 
formed  and  adopted  by  our  sister  States,  we  doubt  not,  has 
given  uneasiness  to  them." 

General  WASHINGTON,  in  his  letter  to  BUSHROD  WASHINGTON, 
Nov.  10,  1787,  says  :  "  Let  the  opponents  of  the  proposed 
Constitution  in  this  State  (Yirginia)  be  asked,  and  it  is  a  ques 
tion  they  ought  certainly  to  have  asked  themselves,  What  line 
of  conduct  they  would  advise  it  to  adopt,  if  nine  other  States, 
of  which  I  think  there  is  no  doubt,  should  accede  to  the  Con 
stitution.  Would  they  recommend  that  it  should  stand  single  ? 
Will  they  connect  it  with  Rhode  Island  ?  " 

In  a  letter  to  JAMES  MADISON,  Dec.  7,  1787,  he  says  :  "  If 
these,  (South  Carolina  and  Georgia,)  with  the  States  eastward 
and  northward,  should  accede  to  the  Federal  Government,  L 
think  the  citizens  of  this  State  will  have  no  cause  to  bless  the 
opposers  of  it  here  if  they  should  carry  their  point." 


REMARKS.  251 

In  a  letter  to  JAMES  MADISON,  Jan.  10,  1788,  lie  says  :  "  But 
of  all  the  arguments  that  may  be  used  at  the  Convention  which 
is  to  be  held,  the  most  prevailing  one  will  be  that  nine  States, 
at  least,  have  acceded  to  it,  that  is,  to  the  Constitution. 

In  his  letter  to  Count  LUZERNE,  Feb.  7,  1780  :  "  It  is  also 
said  that  Georgia  has  acceded" 

Thus  the  language  "  accede  to  the  Constitution,"  "  accede  to 
the  Union,"  was  current  and  correct  long  ago,  as  applied  to  the 
States.  The  phrase  "  members  of  the  Union,"  as  applied  to 
States  that  had  acceded  to  the  Constitution,  or  ratified  the  Consti 
tution,  was  also  in  use.  The  States  are  members  of  the  Union. 

Secede,  secession,  are  the  opposite  of  accede,  accession.  The 
use  of  the  two  latter  words,  in  relation  to  the  Federal  Constitu 
tion,  and  their  supposed  correlation  to  the  two  former,  have 
already  been  noticed. 

"  The  Union  was  formed  by  the  voluntary  agreement  of  the 
States,  and  in  uniting  together  they  have  not  forfeited  their 
nationality,  nor  have  they  been  reduced  to  the  condition  of  one 
and  the  same  people.  If  one  of  the  States  chose  to  withdraw 
its  name  from  the  contract,  it  would  be  difficult  to  disprove  its 
right  of  doing  so."  This  opinion  DE  TOCQTJEVILLE  expresses  in 
his  work  entitled  "Democracy  in  America"  p.  419.  He  was 
as  well  qualified  as  any  other  foreigner  to  judge  correctly  con 
cerning  the  nature  of  our  institutions. 

"  Any  State  may,  at  any  time,  constitutionally  withdraw 
from  the  Union,  and  thus  virtually  dissolve  it.  It  was  not 
certainly  created  with  the  idea  that  the  States,  or  several  of 
them,  would  desire  a  separation.  But  whenever  they  chose  to 
do  it,  they  have  no  obstacle  in  the  way."  THOMAS  COLLET 
GRATTAN'S  Civilized  America,  vol.  i.,  p.  287.  Mr.  MACON,  and 
Mr.  KAWLE,  and  GOUVERNEUR  MORRIS'S  opinions  have  been 
already  quoted  as  agreeing  with  that  of  these  distinguished, 
foreigners.  See  pp.  68,  216,  218. 

The  Northern  members  of  Congress,  on  one  occasion  in  tho- 
early  part  of  General  WASHINGTON'S  administration,  "  threatened 
secession  and  dissolution."  See  p.  37.  Massachusetts  and  Con 
necticut  seemed  at  one  time  to  believe  in  the  right  of  secession,, 

under  certain   circumstances.     We   have    the  declaration  of" 
17 


252  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS,  "  that  the  continuance  of  the  embargo,  in 
1809,  much  longer  would  certainly  be  met  by  forcible  resist 
ance  supported  by  the  Legislature,  and  probably  by  the  ju 
diciary  of  the  State,"  (Massachusetts.)  "  That  their  object  (the 
leaders  of  the  party)  was  and  had  been  for  several  years,  a  dis 
solution  of  the  Union,"  as  he  knew  from  "  unequivocal  evi 
dence,"  that  this  design  had  been  formed  in  the  winter  of  1803 
and  1804,  immediately  after  and  as  a  consequence  of  the 
acquisition  of  Louisiana."  See  p.  70.  Massachusetts  interposed 
her  authority,  pronounced  the  embargo  unconstitutional.  Mr. 
JEFFERSON  wisely  yielded,  and  the  embargo  was  repealed.  In 
thus  avoiding  a  collision  with  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  and 
showing  his  respect  for  State  rights,  he  set  an  example  which 
General  JACKSON  intentionally  or  unintentionally  followed,  in 
advising  the  modification  of  the  tariff  laws  in  1833,  by  which 
he  wisely  avoided  a  collision  with  South  Carolina. 

The  Boston  Centinel  of  ISTov.  9,  1814,  in  noticing  the  ap 
pointment  of  delegates  from  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island,  to 
the  Hartford  Convention,  says  :  "  they  are  the  second  and  third 
pillars  of  the  new  Federal  edifice." 

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS,  in  his  oration  delivered  in  1839,  on 
the  jubilee  of  the  Constitution,  seems  to  countenance  the  right 
of  secession  under  certain  limitations :  "  To  the  people  alone 
is  thus  reserved,  as  well  the  dissolving  as  the  constituent  power, 
and  that  power  can  be  exercised  by  them  only  under  the  tie  of 
'Conscience  binding  them  to  the  retributive  justice  of  heaven. 
With  these  qualifications  we  may  admit  the  same  rights  vested 
in  the  people  of  every  State  in  the  Union  with  reference  to  the 
General  Government."  The  following  from  his  Memoir,  by 
JOSIAH  QUINCY,  p.  98,  has  a  bearing  on  the  same  point :  "  There 
is  now  every  appearance  that  the  slave  question  will  be  carried 
by  the  superior  ability  of  the  slavery  party.  For  this  much 
is  certain,  that  if  institutions  are  to  be  judged  by  their  results, 
in  the  composition  of  the  councils  of  the  Union,  the  slaveholders 
are  much  more  ably  represented  than  the  simple  freemen. 
With  the  .exception  of  RUFUS  KING,  there  is  not  one  in  either 
House  of  Congress,  a  member  of  the  free  States,  able  to  cope 
in  powers  of  the  mind  with  WILLIAM  PINKNEY  and  JAMES 
BARBOUR.  In  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  they  have  no  one 


REMARKS.  253 

to  contend  on  equal  terms  with  JOHN  RANDOLPH  or  CLAY.  An 
other  misfortune  to  the  free  party  is,  that  some  of  their  ablest 
men  are  either  on  this  question  with  their  adversaries,  or  luke 
warm  in  the  cause.  The  slave  men  have  indeed  a  deeper  im 
mediate  stake  in  the  issue  than  the  partisans  of  freedom.  Their 
passions  and  interests  are  more  profoundly  agitated,  and  they 
have  stronger  impulses  to  active  energy  than  their  antagonists, 
whose  only  individual  interest  in  the  case  exists  from  its  bear 
ing  on  the  balance  of  political  power  between  the  North  and 
the  South." 

"  The  impression  produced  on  my  mind  by  the  progress  of 
this  discussion  (the  Missouri)  is,  that  the  bargain  between  free 
dom  and  slavery,  contained  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  is  morally  and  politically  vicious  ;  inconsistent  with  the 
principles  on  which  alone  our  revolution  can  be  justified,  cruel 
and  oppressive,  by  riveting  the  chains  of  slavery,  by  pledging 
the  faith  of  freedom  to  maintain  and  perpetuate  the  tyranny  of 
the  master ;  and  grossly  unequal  and  impolitic,  by  admitting 
that  slaves  are  at  once  enemies  to  be  kept  in  subjection,  prop 
erty  to  be  secured  and  returned  to  their  owners,  and  persons 
not  be  represented  themselves,  but  for  whom  their  masters 
are  privileged  with  many  a  double  share  of  representation. 

"  I  have  favored  this  Missouri  Compromise,  believing  it  to  be 
all  that  could  be  effected  under  the  present  Constitution,  and 
from  extreme  unwillingness  to  put  the  Union  at  hazard.  Bat 
perhaps  it  would  have  been  a  wiser  and  a  bolder  cause  to  have 
persisted  in  the  restriction  on  Missouri,  until  it  should  have 
terminated  in  a  Convention  of  the  States  to  revise  and  amend 
the  Constitution.  This  would  have  produced  a  new  Union  of 
thirteen  or  fourteen  States,  unpolluted  with  slavery,  with  a 
great  and  glorious  object,  that  of  rallying  to  their  standard  the 
other  States,  by  the  universal  emancipation  of  their  slaves.  If 
the  Union  must  be  dissolved,  slavery  is  precisely  the  question 
upon  which  it  ought  to  break." 

COERCION. — The  founders  of  the  Federal  Government  did 
not  rely  for  its  preservation,  mainly  upon  physical  force,  as  if 
it  were  a  military  despotism,  but  upon  mutual  confidence  and 
"  conciliated  interests."  We  have  no  evidence  that  it  was  the 


254  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

intention  of  the  Convention  that  formed  the  Constitution,  or  of 
the  States  that  were  parties  to  the  compact,  to  clothe  the  Gov 
ernment  with  power  to  use  military  coercion  against  a  State 
that  had  placed  itself  on  its  reserved  rights.  If  there  was  such 
an  intention,  where  is  it  recorded  ?  "What  they  did  rely  upon 
was  legal  coercion,  acting  through  the  forms  of  law  upon  indi 
viduals.  Mr.  CURTIS,  in  his  excellent  history  of  the  Constitution, 
vol.  ii.,  pp.  62,  63,  says  :  "  One  of  the  leading  objects  in  forming 
the  Constitution,  was  to  obtain  for  the  United  States  the  means 
of  coercion,  without  a  resort  to  force  against  the  people  of  the 
States  collectively."  u  The  introduction,  therefore,  of  the  judi 
cial  department  into  the  new  plan  of  Government,  of  itself 
evinces  an  intention  to  clothe  that  Government  with  powers  .that 
could  be  executed  peacefully,  and  without  the  necessity  of  putting 
down  the  organized  opposition  of  subordinate  communities." 

WASHINGTON,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  ALEXANDER  HAMILTON, 
Aug.  26,  1792,  having  spoken  of  "  mutual  forbearance  and 
yielding  on  all  sides,"  adds,  "  without  these,  I  do  not  see  how 
the  reins  of  Government  are  to  be-  managed,  or  how  the  Union 
of  the  States  can  much  longer  be  preserved." 

With  respect  to  the  coercion  of  a  State,  I  have  found  no 
evidence  that  WASHINGTON  differed  from  MADISON  and  BU 
CHANAN,  with  respect  to  the  constitutional  power  to  coerce  a 
State.  In  the  case  of  the  whiskey  insurrection,  he  acted  in 
harmony  with  the  executive  authority  of  the  State  then  repre 
sented  by  Governor  MIFFLIN,  and  also  in  harmony  with  the 
views  of  Judge  WILLSON,  of  Pennsylvania,  an  associate  Justice 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  He  was  careful 
to  keep  the  military  in  subordination  to  the  civil  authority. 

In  the  farewell  address  of  General  JACKSON,  March  3,  1837, 
is  the  following  :  "  But  the  Constitution  cannot  be  maintained, 
nor  the  Union  preserved  in  opposition  to  public  feeling  by  the 
mere  exertion  of  coercive  powers  of  the  Government.  The  foun 
dations  must  be  laid  in  the  affections  of  the  people,  in  the 
security  it  gives  to  life,  liberty,  and  property  in  every  quarter 
of  the  country  ;  and  in  the  fraternal  attachments  which  the 
citizens  of  the  several  States  bear  to  one  another,  as  members 
of  one  political  family,  materially  contributing  to  promote  the 
happiness  of  each  other." 


BEMARKS.  255 

It  appears  evident  from  the  debates  in  the  United  States 
Senate,  Feb.  8,  1831,  and  from  other  facts,  that  General  JACK 
SON  endorsed  the  opinions  of  Mr.  HAYNE,  on  the  subject  of  State 
rights,  and  not  those  of  Mr.  WEBSTER.  The  tone  and  language 
of  Mr.  WEBSTER'S  speeches,  on  that  well-known  occasion,  were 
extremely  well  adapted  to  popular  effect,  and  were  greatly  and 
deservedly  admired  even  by  many  who  felt  that  he  leaned  towards 
a  construction  of  the  Constitution  which  would  make  the  Gen 
eral  Government  consolidated  rather  than  Federal. 

What  the  opinions  of  General  JACKSON  were,  in  respect  to 
nullification,  in  the  case  of  South  Carolina  are  well  known  from 
his  proclamation,  written  by  EDWARD  LIVINGSTON,  then  Secre 
tary  of  State.  On  that  occasion  he  was  in  favor  of  carrying 
the  olive  branch  in  one  hand  and  the  sword  in  the  other. 
South  Carolina  was  in  the  Union,  and,  of  course,  subject  to  the 
laws  of  the  Union.  These  laws  General  JACKSON  was  deter 
mined  to  execute,  but  he  and  other  wise  men  on  that  occasion, 
pursued  a  conciliatory  course  that  rendered  the  forcible  execution 
of  the  laws  unnecessary. 

"  If  it  be  supposed  that,  among  the  States  which  are  united 
by  the  Federal  tie,  there  are  some  which  exclusively  enjoy  the 
principal  advantages  of  Union,  or  whose  prosperity  depends  on 
the  duration  of  that  Union,  it  is  unquestionable  that  they  will 
always  be  ready  to  support  the  Central  Government  in  enforcing 
the  obedience  of  others.  But  the  Government  would  then  be 
exciting  a  force  not  derived  from  itself,  but  from  a  principle 
contrary  to  its  nature.  States  form  confederations  in  order  to 
derive  equal  advantages  from  their  union ;  and  in  the  case  just 
alluded  to,  the  Federal  Government  would  derive  its  power 
from  the  unequal  distribution  of  those  benefits  among  the 
States. 

"  If  one  (or  more)  of  the  Confederate  States  have  acquired 
a  preponderance  sufficiently  great  to  enable  it  to  take  exclusive 
possession  of  the  central  authority,  it  will  consider  the  other 
States  as  subject  provinces,  and  it  will  cause  its  own  supremacy 
to  be  respected  under  the  borrowed  name  of  the  Sovereignty  of 
the  Union.  Great  things  may  then  be  done  in  the  name  of  the 
Federal  Government,  but  in  reality  that  Government  will  have 
ceased  to  exist.  In  both  of  these  cases,  the  power  which  acts 


256  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

in  the  name  of  the  Confederation  becomes  stronger,  the  more 
it  abandons  the  natural  state  and  the  acknowledged  principles 
of  Confederation." — DE  TOCQUEVILLE,  p.  419. 

"  I  understand  the  Senator  from  New  Hampshire,  Mr.  HALE, 
to  proclaim  not  the  gospel  of  peace  between  brethren,  but  a  cir 
cumspect  waiting  to  ascertain  whether  Mr.  BUCHANAN  would  or 
would  not  send  a  Federal  army  to  coerce  South  Carolina.  I 
trust,  sir,  if  Mr.  BUCHANAN  should  do  so  high-handed  and  fatal 
an  act  of  violence  as  that,  his  term  is  not  too  brief,  as  President 
of  the  United  States,  for  him  to  be  arraigned  at  our  bar  by  an 
impeachment.  "What  would  South  Carolina  be  worth  to  herself 
or  to  us  if  she  were  dragged  captive  in  chains  ?  I  wish  no  State 
of  this  Union  subjugated  by  her  sisters.  If  she  cannot  be  re 
tained  by  the  bonds  of  affection,  by  acts  of  kindness,  why  then, 
in  God's  name,  horrible  as  I  esteem  such  an  alternative — let 
her  depart  in  sorrowful  silence." — Senator  PUGII,  Dec.  10, 
1860. 

Mr.  CLAY,  in  deprecating  a  civil  war,  used  the  following  lan 
guage  :  "  But  if  they  were  to  conquer,  whom  would  they  con 
quer  ?  A  foreign  foe,  one  who  had  insulted  our  flag,  invaded 
our  shores,  and  laid  our  country  waste  ?  No,  sir,  no.  It  would 
be  a  conquest  without  laurels,  without  glory,  a  self-suicidal  con 
quest,  a  conquest  of  brothers  over  brothers,  obtained  by  one  over 
another  portion  of  the  descendants  of  common  ancestors,  who, 
nobly  pledging  '  their  lives,  their  fortunes,  and  their  sacred 
honor,'  had  fought  and  bled  side  by  side  in  many  a  hard  battle 
on  land  and  ocean,  severed  our  country  from  the  British  crown, 
and  established  our  national  independence." 

It  was  provided  in  the  Constitution  that  legal  coercion  should 
be  exerted  against  individuals  who  violate  the  laws  made  in 
pursuance  of  the  Constitution.  This,  it  was  supposed,  would  su 
persede  the  necessity  of  making  any  provision  for  the  coercion 
of  a  State  by  military  force. 

The  Constitution  recognizes  treason  against  a  Slate  as  a 
crime,  and  requires  a  traitor  who  has  fled  into  another  State  to 
be  delivered  up.  It  thus  acknowledges  the  Sovereignty  of  the 
States  :  Treason  is  a  crime  against  sovereignty.  "  The  Consti 
tution  does  not,"  in  the  language  of  Chief-Justice  ELLSWORTH, 
"  attempt  to  coerce  sovereign  bodies."  Such  an  attempt  is 


REMAKES.  257 

equivalent  to  an  act  of  war  of  a  government  of  delegated  sov 
ereignty^  against  a  government  of  original  and  inherent  sov 
ereignty. 

CONCILIATION  AND  COMPROMISE. — In  1794,  when  combina 
tions  were  formed  in  Pennsylvania  to  defeat  the  execution  of  the 
laws  laying  duties  upon  spirits  distilled  within  the  United 
States,  commissioners  were  appointed  by  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  to  persuade  the  actors  to  return  to  their  duty.  Thus 
WASHINGTON  pursued  a  conciliatory  course,  even  in  case  of  an 
insurrection  which  received  no  encouragement  from  a  State,  in 
its  organized  capacity. 

"  Now,  for  one,  I  am  not  ready  yet  to  take  the  responsibility 
of  absolutely  closing  the  door  of  reconciliation.  I  cannot  per 
suade  myself  to  forget  the  warnings  that  have  descended  to  us 
from  many  of  the  wisest  and  best  statesmen  of  all  time  against 
this  rigid  and  haughty  mode  of  treating  great  discontents.  I 
cannot  overlook  the  fact  that,  in  the  days  of  our  fathers,  the  im 
perious  spirit  of  CHATHAM  did  not  feel  itself  as  sacrificing  any 
of  his  proud  dignity  by  proposing  to  listen  to  their  grievances, 
and  even  to  concede  every  reasonable  demand,  long  after  they 
had  placed  themselves  in  armed  resistance  to  all  the  power  of 
Great  Britain.  Had  George  the  Third  listened  to  his  words  of 
wisdom,  he  might  have  saved  the  brightest  jewel  of  his  crown. 
He  took  the  opposite  course.  He  denied  the  existence  of  griev 
ances.  He  rejected  the  olive  branch.  History  records  its  ver 
dict  in  favor  of  CHATHAM  and  against  the  king." — C.  F.  ADAMS, 
of  Massachusetts,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  Jan.  31, 
1861. 

This  language  of  conciliation  was  in  harmony  with  the  feel 
ings  of  a  great  portion  of  the  people  in  the  States  both  North 
and  South,  at  that  time. 

On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  EGEETON,  of  Ohio,  Jan.  31,  1861, 
said : 

1.  "  I  will  not  compromise,  because  I  have  no  faith  that  any 
compromise  we  can  make  would  stand  any  longer  than  it  minis 
tered  to  slavery. 

2.  "  I  will  not  compromise,  because  I  would  not  further 
strengthen  slavery. 


258  THE  SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

3.  "  I  will  not  compromise,  finally,  because  slavery  is  a  sin, 
an  outrage  against  humanity,  and  an  insult  to  God." 

This  language  was  probably  in  harmony  with  the  feelings 
of  a  large  portion  of  people  in  some  of  the  Northern  States. 

"  This  is  a  mighty  empire.  Its  existence  spreads  its  influ 
ence  through  the  civilized  world.  Its  overthrow  will  be  the 
greatest  shock  that  civilization  and  free  governments  have  ever 
received ;  more  extensive  in  its  consequences,  more  fatal  to 
mankind,  than  the  French  Revolution,  with  all  its  blood,  and 
with  all  its  war  and  violence.  And  for  what  ?  Upon  questions 
concerning  this  line  of  division  between  slavery  and  freedom  ? 
Why,  Mr.  President,  suppose  this  day  all  the  Southern  States 
being  refused  their  right,  being  refused  this  partition,  being  de 
nied  this  privilege,  were  to  separate  from  the  Northern  Sta-tes, 
were  to  do  it  peaceably,  and  then  were  to  come  to  you  and  say  : 
4  Let  there  be  no  war  between  us ;  let  us  divide  fairly  this  terri 
tory  of  the  United  States ; '  could  the  Northern  section  of  the 
country  refuse  so  just  a  demand  ?  what  would  you  then  give  them  ? 
what  would  be  the  fair  proportion  ?  If  you  allowed  them  their 
fair  relative  proportion,  would  you  not  give  them  as  much  as  is 
now  proposed  to  be  assigned  on  the  Southern  side  of  that  line, 
and  would  they  not  be  at  liberty  to  carry  their  slaves  there  if 
they  pleased  ?  "—Mr.  CRITTENDEN,  Dec.  28,  1860. 

Mr.  EVERETT,  May  29, 1860,  made  the  following  declaration  : 
"  Our  political  controversies  have  substantially  assumed  an 
almost  purely  sectional  character — that  of  a  fearful  struggle 
between  the  North  and  the  South.  It  would  not  be  difficult  to 
show  at  length  the  perilous  nature  and  tendency  of  this  strug 
gle,  but  I  can  only  say,  on  this  occasion,  that,  in  my  opinion,  it 
cannot  much  longer  be  kept  up  without  rending  the  Union. 
*  *  *  A  spirit  of  patriotic  moderation  must  be  called  into 
activity  throughout  the  Union,  or  it  will  assuredly  be  broken 
up." 

Senator  BROWN,  of  Mississippi,  Dec.  12,  1860,  said  :  "  If  the 
same  spirit  could  prevail  which  now  actuated  the  Senator  who 
has  just  spoken,  (Mr.  DIXON,  of  Connecticut,)  a  different  state 
of  things  might  prevail  in  twenty  days." 

President  BUCHANAN  used  the  following  language  on  this 
subject:  "The  proposition  to  compromise  by  letting  the  North 


REMARKS.  259 

have  the  exclusive  control  of  the  territory  above  a  certain  line, 
and  giving  Southern  institutions  protection  below  that  line, 
ought  to  receive  universal  approbation.  In  itself,  it  may  not  be 
entirely  satisfactory,  but  when  the  alternative  is  between  a  rea 
sonable  concession  on  both  sides,  and  the  destruction  of  the 
Union,  it  is  an  imputation  on  the  patriotism  of  Congress  to  as 
sert  that  its  members  will  hesitate  for  a  moment." 

Listen,  also,  to  the  following  patriotic  sentiments  from  Sen 
ator  SEWARD  :  "  Beyond  a  doubt,  Union  is  vitally  important  to 
the  Republican  citizens  of  the  United  States ;  but  it  is  just  as 
important  to  the  whole  people.  Republicanism  and  Union  are 
not  convertible  terms.  Republicanism  is  subordinate  to  Union 
as  every  thing  else  is ;  Republicanism,  Democracy,  every  other 
political  name  and  thing — all  are  subordinate,  and  they  ought 
to  disappear  in  the  presence  of  the  great  question  of  Union.  So 
far  as  I  am  concerned,  it  shall  be  so." 

The  plan  of  compromise  proposed  by  Mr.  CRITTENDEN,  Jan. 
12, 1861 — and  which  was  regarded  with  favor  by  a  large  portion 
of  the  Peace  Congress  assembled  at  Washington,  and  which  was 
acceptable  generally  to  the  Border  States — was  not  satisfactory 
to  the  extremists  either  North  or  South.  The  majority  of  the 
Senate  was  not  in  favor  of  it.  "Whether  the  greater  share  of  the 
blame  of  the  failure  of  this  attempt  at  compromise  was  due  to 
the  North,  or  to  the  South,  it  is  not  necessary  here  to  inquire. 
The  terrible  consequences  of  the  failure  soon  became  alarmingly 
evident.  "  Blood-letting  "  was  substituted  for  the  counsels  of 
peace  and  conciliation. 

CONSTRUCTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. — "It  is  evident  that  a 
Confederation  so  vast  and  so  varied,  both  in  numbers  and  in 
territorial  extent,  in  habits  and  interests,  could  only  be  kept  in 
national  cohesion  by  the  strictest  fidelity  to  the  principles  of  the 
Constitution,  as  understood  by  those  who  have  adhered  to  the 
most  restricted  constructions  of  the  powers  given  by  the  people 
and  the  States.  Interpreted  and  applied  according  to  those 
principles,  the  great  compact  adapts  itself  with  healthy  ease  and 
freedom  to  an  unlimited  extension  of  that  benign  system  of 
federative  self-government,  of  which  it  is  our  glorious,  and,  I 
trust,  immortal  charter.  Let  us  then,  with  redoubled  vigilance, 


260  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY 

be  on  our  guard  against  yielding  to  the  temptation  to  the  exer 
cise  of  doubtful  powers,  even  under  the  pressure  of  the  motives 
of  conceded  temporary  advantage  and  apparent  temporary  ex 
pediency. 

"  The  minimum  of  Federal  Government,  compatible  with 
the  maintenance  of  national  unity  and  efficient  action  in  our 
relation  with  the  rest  of  the  world,  should  afford  the  rule  and 
measure  of  construction  of  our  powers  under  the  general  clauses 
of  the  Constitution.  A  spirit  of  strict  deference  to  the  sovereign 
rights  and  dignity  of  every  State,  rather  than  a  disposition  to 
subordinate  the  States  into  a  provincial  relation  to  the  central 
authority,  should  characterize  all  our  exercise  of  the  respective 
powers  temporarily  vested  in  us  as  a  sacred  trust  from  the  gener 
ous  confidence  of  our  constituents." — FRANKLIN  PIERCE.  .First 
Annual  Message. 

Mr.  MADISON,  in  his  letter  to  Mr.  "WEBSTER,  March  15,  1833, 
says  :  "  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  being  established 
by  a  competent  authority,  by  that  of  the  sovereign  people  of  the 
several  States  who  were  parties  to  it,  it  remains  only  to  in 
quire  what  that  Constitution  is." 

The  evidence  in  this  inquiry  is  largely  philological.  The 
common  rules  for  interpreting  language  must  be  applied  to  the 
Constitution  in  order  to  learn  what  it  is.  The  meaning  attrib 
uted  to  the  several  clauses  by  the  Convention  that  formed  it, 
and  the  several  State  Conventions  which  adopted  it,  may  be 
safely  considered  as  the  true  meaning. 

Practically,  the  true  course  to  be  pursued  by  the  Federal 
Government  in  the  construction  of  the  Constitution,  is  NEVER  TO 

ATTEMPT   TO    EXERCISE    ANY  DOUBTFUL  POWERS.       The  benefit  of  a 

doubt  should  always  accrue  to  the  residuary  powers  reserved  to 
the  States,  and  never  to  the  delegated  powers  intrusted  by  the 
Constitution  to  the  Federal  Government. 

The  burden  of  proof  rests  on  the  Federal  Government.  In 
the  last  resort  the  parties  to  the  constitutional  compact  must  be 
the  judges.  See  p.  268. 

GOUVERNEUR    MoRRIS  TO  TlMOTHY   PlCKERINO,  DEC.  22,  1814. 

— "But,  after  all,  what  does  it  signify  that  men  should  have 
a  written  Constitution,  containing  unequivocal  provisions  and 


REMARKS.  261 

limitations.  The  legislative  lion  will  not  be  entangled  in  the 
meshes  of  a  logical  net.  The  Legislature  will  always  make  the 
power  which  it  wishes  to  exercise,  unless  it  be  so  organized  as 
to  contain,  in  itself,  the  sufficient  check.  Attempts  to  restrain 
it  from  outrage  by  other  means  will  only  render  it  the  more 
outrageous.  The  idea  of  binding  Legislatures  by  oaths  is  pue 
rile.  Having  sworn  to  exercise  the  powers  granted  accord 
ing  to  their  true  intent  and  meaning,  they  will,  when  they  de 
sire,  go  further  and  avoid  the  shame,  if  not  the  guilt  of  per 
jury,  by  showing  the  true  intent  to  be,  according  to  their  com 
prehension,  that  which  suits  their  purpose." 

"  There  is  no  difference  between  a  Government  having  all 
power  and  a  Government  having  the  right  to  take  what  power 
it  pleases." — J.  C.  CALIIOCN. 

In  1802,  ALEXANDER  HAMILTON  called  the  Constitution  the 
"  frail  and  worthless  fabric,"  and  spoke  of  it  as  "  a  temporary 
bond."  He  had  endeavored  to  infuse  energy  and  strength  into 
it  by  a  broad  or  loose  construction  of  its  powers,  but  the  States 
had  decided  against  such  a  construction ;  hence  the  epithets 
which  he  applied  to  it. 

Mr.  MADISON  says  of  General  WASHINGTON,  "  that  he  signed 
Jay's  treaty,  but  he  did  not  at  all  like  it.  He  also  signed  the 
bank,  but  he  was  very  near  not  doing  so  ;  if  he  had  refused,  it 
would,  in  my  opinion,  have  produced  a  crisis." 

"  I  am  satisfied  that  had  it  been  his  veto,  there  would  have 
been  an  effort  to  nullify  it ;  they  would  have  arrayed  them 
selves  in  a  hostile  attitude." — Mr.  TRIST,  1S2T. 

A  dominant  party  in  the  Government  is  often  tempted  to 
enlarge  the  Federal  powers  at  the  expense  of  State  rights  ;  and 
when  the  opposing  party  becomes  dominant,  it,  in  turn,  is 
tempted  to  follow  bad  precedents,  and  thus  sanction  what  it 
had  asserted  to  be  a  violation  of  the  Constitution.  Thus  Mr. 
MADISON,  with  his  party,  opposed,  with  great  ability,  the  charter 
of  the  first  bank  of  the  United  States.  But  when  his  own  party 
came  into  power,  and  passed  a  vote  to  charter  the  second  bank 
of  the  United  States,  he,  in  opposition  to  his  own  declared  con 
stitutional  views  on  the  subject,  gave  his  signature  to  the 
bill. 

An  unconstitutional  act  in  a  given  case  "  will  be  recorded  as 


262  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

a  precedent,  and  many  an  error,  by  the  same  example,  will  rush 
into  the  State." 

REVOLUTION. — A  revolution  does  not  necessarily  imply  war 
or  the  shedding  of  blood,  as  it  is  supposed  by  many  to  do. 
What  is  the  cause  of  this  erroneous  supposition  ?  Why,  in  the 
case  of  the  American  Revolution  there  was  war  and  the  shed 
ding  of  blood.  In  the  case  of  the  French  Revolution  there  was 
war  •  and  the  shedding  of  blood,  and  so  the  conclusion  is  drawn 
that  revolution  necessarily  implies  war  and  the  shedding  of 
blood. 

"  I  acknowledge,  to  the  fullest  extent,  the  right  of  revolu 
tion,  if  you  call  it  a  right,  and  of  the  destruction  of  the  Govern 
ment  under  which  we  live,  if  we  are  discontented  with  it,  and 
on  its  ruins  to  erect  another  more  in  accordance  with  our  wishes  ; 
but  they  that  undertake  it,  undertake  it  with  this  hazard :  if 
they  are  successful,  then  all  is  right,  and  they  are  heroes ;  if  they 
are  defeated,  they  are  rebels." — Senator  WADE,  of  Ohio,  Dec. 
IT,  1850. 

"  We  are  confusing  language  very  much.  Men  speak  of 
revolution,  and  when  they  speak  of  revolution  they  mean  blood. 
Our  fathers  meant  nothing  of  the  sort.  When  they  spoke  of 
revolution,  they  spoke  of  an  inalienable  right."  If  our  fathers 
had  the  "  inalienable  right  "  to  change  their  "  systems  of  Gov 
ernment,"  where  was  the  right  of  Great  Britain  in  the  premises 
to  wage  war  against  the  States  ? 

In  Mr.  FORCE'S  published  volumes  is  a  pamphlet,  the  title 
page  of  which  is  as  follows  :  "  An  account  of  the  late  REVOLU 
TION  in  New  England,  together  with  the  declaration  of  the  gen 
tlemen,  merchants,  and  inhabitants  of  Boston  and  the  country 
adjacent,  April,  18,  1689  ;  written  by  Nathaniel  Byefield,  a 
merchant  of  Boston,  in  New  England,  to  his  friends  in  Lon 
don."  Concerning  this  revolution,  it  is  said  "  through  the  good 
ness  of  God  there  has  "been  no  blood  shed"  In  this  revolution 
from  the  Government  of  JAMES  to  that  of  WILLIAM,  Sir  EDMOND 
ANDROSS,  Kt.,  was  ordered  to  "  surrender  and  deliver  up  the 
Government  and  fortifications,"  and  he  consented  without  re 
sistance.  The  great  English  revolution  of  1689,  when  JAMES 
II.  was  dethroned,  and  WILLIAM  and  MARY  reigned  in  his  stead, 


REMARKS. 

was  not  attended  by  war  or  much  violence ;  and  yet,  how  be 
neficent  it  proved !  Revolution  is  not  necessarily  connected 
with  war  and  bloodshed. 

SOVEREIGNTY  OK  SUPREME  POWER. — In  a  despotism,  the  mon 
arch  is  sovereign.  In  Great  Britain,  the  sovereignty,  or  supreme 
power,  is  lodged  with  the  Kings,  Lords,  and  Commons.  In  the 
United  States,  it  rests  with  the  people  of  the  several  States. 

In  the  Continental  Congress,  1774,  PATRICK  HENRY,  speak 
ing  for  Virginia,  thought  it  would  be  unjust  "  for  a  little  colony 
to  weigh  as  much  in  the  councils  of  America  as  a  great  one." 
Mr.  SULLIVAN,  of  New  Hampshire,  responded  that  "  a  little 
colony  had  its  all  at  stake  as  much  as  a  great  one,"  thus  an 
nouncing  in  the  outset  the  great  doctrine  of  the  equality  of 
States,  as  sovereign  and  independent  communities.  Accord 
ingly,  it  was  resolved  that  "  each  colony  shall  have  one  vote." 

In  June  27,  1776,  the  Continental  Congress  declared  "  that 
all  persons  owing  allegiance  to  any  of  the  United  Colonies,  who 
shall  bring  war  against  any  of  the  citizens,  are  guilty  of  trea 
son  "  against  the  colony  to  which  they  owe  allegiance,  thus  re 
cognizing  the  sovereignty  of  each  colony. 

In  the  Constitution,  of  Massachusetts,  formed  1780,  is  the  fol 
lowing  form  :  "  I,  A  B,  do  truly  and  sincerely  acknowledge, 
profess,  testify,  and  declare,  that  the  Commonwealth  of  Massa 
chusetts  is,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  a  free,  sovereign,  and  inde 
pendent  State ;  and  I  do  swear  that  I  will  bear  true  allegiance  to 
the  Commonwealth,  and  that  I  will  defend  the  same  against  trai 
torous  conspiracies." 

The  States  are  sovereign  in  all  that  relates  to  the  powers  re 
served  to  themselves,  and  which  they  did  not  delegate  to  the 
Federal  Government  in  creating  it.  In  creating  the  Federal 
Government,  the  States  delegated  a  portion  of  their  individual 
sovereignty  to  it,  to  be  employed  for  the  common  benefit.  The 
Federal  Government  was  endowed,  by  the  States  acting  in  con 
ventions,  with  the  powers  of  exercising  sovereignty  in  respect 
to  war,  taxation,  and  treaties  with  foreign  nations,  and  other 
enumerated  subjects.  In  the  language  of  Mr.  MADISON,  the  enu 
merated  powers  vested  in  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
are  of  as  high  and  sovereign  a  character  as  any  of  the  powers 
reserved  to  the  State  Governments. 


264:  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

"  Nor  is  the  Government  of  the  United  States  created  by 
the  Constitution,  less  a  Government,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the 
term,  within  the  scope  of  its  powers,  than  the  Governments  cre 
ated  by  the  Constitutions  of  the  States  are  within  their  several 
spheres." 

"  My  own  general  idea  was  that  the  States  should  severally 
preserve  their  sovereignty ,  and  that  the  exercise  of  the  Federal 
sovereignty  should  be  divided  among  these  several  bodies, 
legislative,  executive,  and  judiciary,  as  the  State  sovereignties 
are,  and  that  some  peaceable  means  should  be  contrived  for  the 
Federal  head  to  force  compliance  on  the  part  of  the  States." 
This  refers  to  legal  coercion,  to  the  exclusion  of  war. 

The  people  of  each  State,  at  the  time  they  adopted  the  Fed 
eral  Constitution,  delegated  to  the  Federal  Government  a  por 
tion  of  the  sovereignty  which  was  inherent  in  the  State,  but 
they  reserved  to  it  all  that  was  not  delegated.  They  delegated 
to  the  Federal  Government  the  power  to  act  on  individuals,  but 
not  to  act  against  the  State  by  military  coercion.  To  act  against 
a  State  in  this  way,  would  be  to  make  war  against  a  sovereign 
power,  to  which  the  people  of  the  State,  as  individuals,  owe 
allegiance  as  well  as  obedience,  and  against  which  they  may 
commit  treason  by  withholding  allegiance  and  obedience. 

"Whenever  a  question  arises  in  regard  to  the  line  of  division 
between  the  delegated  sovereignty  of  the  Federal  Government 
and  the  original  sovereignty  of  the  States,  it  was  intended  that 
the  Federal  Court  shall,  by  its  decision,  settle  that  question  in 
all  those  cases  which  can  be  brought  before  it  for  adjudication, 
and  that  the  Executive  shall  carry  out  those  decisions  in  their 
applications  to  individuals. 

"  This  Constitution,  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States  which 
shall  be  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  and  all  treaties  made,  or 
which  shall  be  made,  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States, 
shall  be  the  superior  law  of  the  land  ;  and  the  Judges  in  every 
State  shall  be  bound  thereby,  any  thing  in  the  Constitution  or 
laws  of  any  State  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding."  This  ap 
plies  only  to  distinct  and  not  to  doubtful  powers. 

But  if  a  State  should  place  itself  on  its  reserved  powers,  and 
should  deny  the  constitutionality  of  a  Federal  act,  whether  of 
the  legislative,  or  executive,  or  the  judicial  branch  of  the 


REMARKS.  265 

Government,  then  the  true  mode  of  settling  the  same  question 
is  to  summon  a  Convention  of  the  States  to  declare  that  act 
constitutional  or  otherwise,  and  thus  prevent  a  dangerous  colli 
sion  between  the  delegated  sovereignty  of  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  and  the  residuary  sovereignty  of  the  States.  War  is  a 
contest  between  sovereignties. 

"  The  Gordian  knot  of  the  Constitution  seems  to  be  in  the 
problem  of  collision  between  the  Federal  and  State  powers, 
especially  as  eventually  to  be  exercised  by  their  respective  tri 
bunals.  If  the  knot  cannot  be  untied  by  the  text  of  the  Consti 
tution,  it  ought  not  certainly  to  be  cut  by  any  political  Alexan 
der."— Mr.  MADISON,  Jan.  29,  1821. 

ALLEGIANCE. — On  the  2d  of  July,  1776,  the  Continental 
Congress  passed  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  the  United  Colonies  are,  and  of  right  ought 
to  be,  free  and  independent  States  ;  that  they  are  absolved  from 
all  allegiance  to  the  British  crown,  and  that  all  political  con 
nection  between  them  and  the  State  of  Great  Britain  is,  and 
ought  to  be,  totally  dissolved." 

On  the  passage  of  this  resolution,  a  special  committee  was 
appointed  to  prepare  a  preamble  declaring  the  causes  which 
led  to  its  adoption,  to  accompany  its  promulgation  to  the  world. 
On  the  Fourth  of  July,  this  Declaration  of  Independence  received 
the  unanimous  sanction  of  the  delegates  from  each  State,  by  the 
signature  of  their  names. 

In  1777,  the  following  oath  of  "  abjuration  and  allegiance" 
was  adopted  by  the  State  of  South  Carolina :  "  I,  A  B,  do  ac 
knowledge  that  the  State  of  South  Carolina  is,  and  of  right 
ought  to  be,  a  free,  and  independent,  and  sovereign  State,  and 
that  the  people  thereof  owe  no  allegiance  or  obedience  to  George 
the  Third,  King  of  Great  Britain  ;  *  *  *  and  I  do  further 
swear  that  I  will  bear  faith  and  true  allegiance  to  the  said 
State,  and  to  the  utmost  of  my  power  will  support,  maintain, 
and  defend  the  freedom  and  independence  thereof." 

The  present  Constitution  of  South  Carolina  contains  the  fol 
lowing  :  "  I  solemnly  swear  (or  affirm)  that  I  will  be  faithful, 
and  true  allegiance  bear  to  the  State  of  South  Carolina,  so  long 
as  I  continue  a  citizen  thereof." 


266  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

In  the  Constitution  of  Massachusetts,  formed  in  1780,  is  the 
following  form  :  "  I,  A  B,  do  testify  and  sincerely  acknowledge, 
profess,  testify,  and  declare,  that  the  Commonwealth  of  Massa 
chusetts  is,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  a  free,  sovereign,  and  inde 
pendent  State,  and  I  do  swear  I  will  bear  true  allegiance  to  the 
Commonwealth,  and  that  I  will  defend  the  same  against  all  trai 
torous  conspiracies." 

Is  allegiance  due  both  to  the  State  sovereignty  and  to  the 
Federal  sovereignty,  also,  in  the  scope  of  its  delegated  powers  ? 
Can  sovereignty,  or  at  least  its  exercise,  be  divided  between  the 
State  Government  and  the  General  Government  ?  May  not  a 
corresponding  division  be  made  of  allegiance  ?  Why  not  ? 

There  are  those  who  say  that  allegiance  cannot  be  divided. 
They  say  that,  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
every  citizen  owes  allegiance  to  the  State,  and  obedience  to  the 
Federal  Government. 

4.  Northern  Views  of  Slave  Property. — In  March,  1798, 
when  the  bill  for  the  erection  of  a  Government  in  Mississippi 
Territory  was  before  Congress,  it  was  moved  that  the  same 
should  be  in  all  respects  similar  to  that  established  in  the  North 
western  Territory,  except  that "  slavery  should  not  be  forbidden." 
Mr.  THATCHER,  of  Massachusetts,  moved  to  strike  out  the  except 
ing  clause,  thus  excluding  slavery  from  the  Territory. 

Mr.  OTIS,  of  Massachusetts,  "  hoped  his  colleague  would  not 
withdraw  his  motion  ;  and  the  reason  why  he  wished  this  was, 
that  an  opportunity  might  be  given  to  gentlemen  who  came  from 
the  same  part  of  the  Union  with  him  to  manifest  that  it  is  not 
their  disposition  to  interfere  with  the  Southern  States  as  to 
that  species  of  property  in  question.  lie  thought  it  was  not  the 
business  of  those  who  had  nothing  to  do  with  that  kind  of  prop 
erty  to  interfere  with  that  right.  If  the  amendment  prevailed, 
it  would  declare  that  no  slavery  should  exist  in  the  batches 
country.  This  would  not  only  be  a  sentence  of  banishment, 
but  of  war." 

The  amendment  did  not  prevail,  and  slavery  was  permitted 
in  the  Territory. 

Chief- Justice  SHAW,  of  Massachusetts,  1836,  in  a  legal  deci 
sion,  said :  "  Slavery,  to  a  certain  extent,  seems  to  have  crept 


REMARKS.  267 

into  the  colonial  government,  not -probably  by  force  of  law,  for 
none  such  is  found  to  exist ;  but  either,  it  is  presumed,  from  that 
universal  custom  pervading  through  the  colonies,  in  the  "West 
Indies,  and  on  the  continent  of  America,  and  which  was  fos 
tered  and  encouraged  by  the  commercial  policy  of  the  times. 
That  it  was  so  established  is  shown  by  this :  that  by  several 
provincial  acts,  passed  at  various  times  in  the  early  part  of  the 
last  century,  slavery  was  recognized  as  an  existing  fact,  and  va 
rious  regulations  were  prescribed  in  reference  to  it." 

Judge  BISSEL,  of  Conn.,  has  said,  1837,  "  that  the  principle 
was  recognized  and  acted  upon  that  one  man  might  have  prop 
erty  in  another,  might  command  his  services  for  life  without 
compensation,  and  dispose  of  him  as  he  would  of  any  other 
chattel." 

Judge  BALDWIN,  of  the  United  States  Court,  in  the  case  of 
Johnson  versus  Tompkins,  declares  that  "  the  foundations  of  this 
(the  Federal)  Government  are  laid,  and  rest  on  the  rights  of 
property  in  slaves,  and  the  whole  fabric  must  fall  by  disturbing 
the  corner-stone" 

ALEXANDER  HAMILTON  remarks  that  "  it  is  the  unfortunate 
situation  of  the  Southern  States  to  have  a  great  part  of  their 
population,  as  well  as  property,  in  blacks."  He,  like  other 
leading  statesmen  contemporaneous  with  him,  had  no  difficulty 
in  considering  slaves  as  property. 

7.  PERSONAL  LIBERTY  BILLS. — "  If  the  property  of  an  Ameri 
can  citizen  is  taken  by  a  foreign  nation,  and,  upon  a  demand  for 
redress,  it  is  not  given  up,  or  paid  for,  war  follows ;  and  if  instead 
the  foreign  Government  legislates  to  protect  the  wrongdoer,  war 
is  inevitable."  "  It  would  be  the  case  if  the  same  thing  took 
place  between  any  foreign  States.  But  we  (the  Southern  States) 
are  in  a  vastly  worse  condition  than  would  be  the  people  of  any 
foreign  State,  because  those  States  of  the  Union  that  legislate 
to  prevent  the  recapture  of  our  property  are  doing  it  with  per 
fect  safety.  The  proceedings  of  the  old  Barbary  powers,  when 
they  used  to  send  out  cruisers  and  capture  property  on  the  high 
seas,  were  brave  and  honorable  enterprises  compared  with 
these  proceedings,  because  they  run  the  risk  of  having  their 

cities  bombarded." — Senator  CLINGMAN,  Dec.  4,  1860. 
18 


268  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTEST. 

This  statement  of  tlie  case,  evidently  a  fair  one,  places  in  a 
strong  light  the  injustice  of  certain  personal  liberty  bills,  vio 
lating,  as  they  do,  the  principles  of  the  Constitution,  and  having 
the  effect  to  defeat  one  of  its  provisions.  Any  State  which  has 
passed  a  personal  liberty  bill  designed  to  defeat  a  plain  provi 
sion  of  the  Constitution  for  the  return  of  fugitive  slaves,  cannot 
consistently  complain  of  the  States  injured  by  those  bills,  if  they 
refuse  to  act  with  them  in  the  Confederacy.  Without  the  in 
troduction  of  the  article  for  the  return  of  fugitive  slaves,  we 
know  that  the  Constitution  would  not  have  been  adopted,  and 
if  States,  by  their  legislation,  make  that  article  null  and  void, 
they  release  the  other  States  which  hold  slaves  from  their  obli 
gation  to  continue  in  the  Confederacy.  "  A  compact  broken  on 
one  side  is  broken  on  all  sides." 

8.  Who  are  to  judge,  in  the  last  resort,  in  respect  to  the 
constitutionality  of  the  acts  of  the  Federal  Government  ?  Evi 
dently  the  same  organized  bodies  that  originally  adopted  the 
Constitution,  and  that  now  have  power  to  amend  the  Constitu 
tion.  "  Nine,"  or  three-quarters  of  the  States  that  sent  delegates 
to  the  Convention,  had  power  to  adopt  the  Constitution  and 
make  it  binding  between  the  States ;  and  three-quarters  of  the 
States  now  acting  by  their  Legislatures  or  their  Conventions, 
have  power  to  amend  the  Constitution.  They  can  declare  what 
the  meaning  of  the  Constitution  is  in  doubtful  cases. 

In  common  cases,  which  are  capable  of  assuming,  and  actu 
ally  assuming,  the  character  of  a  suit,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  is  the  interpreter. 

In  cases  not  capable  of  assuming  the  character  of  a  suit  at 
law  or  in  equity,  Congress,  when  called  to  act,  must  interpret 
the  Constitution  in  such  a  way  as  never  to  exercise  any  doubtful 
powers. 

When  the  Supreme  Court  or  Congress,  or,  more  comprehen 
sively,  when  the  General  Government  exercises  doubtful  power 
or  powers  that  any  of  the  States  claim  to  be  not  delegated,  but 
reserved,  then  the  States,  acting  in  Convention  or  by  their  Legis 
latures,  can  determine  whether  the  power  in  question  is  delegated 
or  reserved.  The  States  are  to  judge  in  the  last  resort  of  the 
constitutionality  of  the  acts  of  the  Federal  Government.  The 
Constitution  gives  to  them  this  authority,  in  giving  them  power 


REMARKS.  269 

to  amend  the  Federal  Constitution.  If  three-fourths  of  the 
States  refuse  to  act  by  their  Legislatures  or  by  Convention,  in 
the  manner  prescribed  by  the  Constitution,  then  the  aggrieved 
States  have  to  choose  between  bearing  the  evil  complained  of, 
or  vindicating  the  right  of  revolution ;  just  as  the  colonies  did 
when  they  made  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  sus 
tained  it  by  a  seven  years'  war  against  the  unreasonable  de 
mands  of  the  mother  country.  And  as  the  aggrieved  States 
have  in  such  a  case  the  right  to  determine  wrhat  it  is  their  duty 
to  do ;  so  in  like  manner  the  other  States,  acting  through  the 
forms  of  the  Federal  Government,  have  also  the  right  to  deter 
mine  what  it  is  their  duty  to  do  in  their  relations  to  the  ag 
grieved  States. 


CHAPTEK  XYI. 


MARCH  4,  1861— MARCH  4,  1865. 

MR.  LINCOLN  was  the  candidate  of  the  Republican  or  Anti- 
slavery  party.  In  his  platform,  adopted  by  the  party  at  Chi 
cago,  1860,  is  the  following  declaration  or  resolution  :  "  That 
the  maintenance,  inviolate,  of  the  rights  of  the  States,  and  espe 
cially  of  the  right  of  each  State,  to  order  and  control  its  own 
domestic  institutions,  according  to  its  own  judgment  exclu 
sively,  is  essential  to  that  balance  of  power  on  which  the  perfec 
tion  and  endurance  of  our  political  fabric  depends."  This  was 
supposed  to  contain  such  an  amount  of  the  doctrine  of  state 
rights  as  would  satisfy  the  conservative  portion  of  that  party. 

There  was  also  in  it  the  following  declaration:  "That  the 
normal  condition  of  the  territory  of  the  United  States  is  that 
of  freedom."  This,  with  other  kindred  declarations  in  the 
platform,  was  supposed  to  contain  such  an  amount  of  anti- 
slavery  doctrine  as  would  satisfy  the  free-soilers  and  aboli 
tionists.  As  a  whole,  the  platform  was  not  as  insulting  to 
the  South,  and  to  the  Federal  Constitution,  as  that  of  Fre 
mont,  inasmuch  as  it  did  not  contain  the  expression,  "  the  twin 
brothers  of  barbarism,  slavery  and  polygamy,"  which  was 
found  in  that. 

JOHN  C.  BRECKENRIDGE  was  the  candidate  of  the  Southern 
Democracy.  His  platform,  adopted  at  Charleston  and  Balti 
more,  besides  the  Cincinnati  platform,  contained  the  following 
declaration :  "  That  the  government  of  a  Territory,  organized 
by  an  act  of  Congress,  is  provisional  and  temporary  ;  and 
during  its  existence  all  citizens  of  the  United  States  have  an 


PRESIDENT  LINCOLN'S  QUALIFICATIONS.  271 

equal  right  to  settle  with  their  property  in  the  Territory, 
without  their  rights  of  person  or  property  being  destroyed  or 
impaired  by  congressional  or  territorial  legislation."  This  is 
in  accordance  with  the  previous  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  and  leaves  to  the  State,  when  it  shall  be 
formed,  the  right,  as  Sovereign,  to  say  what  is  property,  and  to 
establish  or  to  abolish  slavery. 

STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS  was  the  candidate  of  the  Northern 
Democracy.  His  platform,  adopted  in  1860,  at  Charleston 
and  Baltimore,  reaffirmed  the  Cincinnati  platform  of  1856, 
and  declared  "  That  the  Democratic  party  will  abide  by  the 
decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  on  the 
questions  of  constitutional  law."  This  was  satisfactory  to  the 
South  as  to  the  present,  but  not  as  to  the  future ;  for  it  im 
plied  that  the  Democratic  party  would  change  its  opinion  as 
to  the  rights  of  the  master  over  his  slaves  in  the  Territories, 
if  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  which  had  affirmed  those 
rights,  should  afterwards  be  reversed. 

JOHN  BELL  was  the  candidate  of  the  Union  party.  His 
platform,  adopted  at  Baltimore,  1860,  was,  "  The  Constitution 
of  the  country,  the  union  of  the  States,  and  the  enforcement 
of  its  laws." 

The  first  of  these  platforms  was  described  as  double  in  its 
meaning ;  the  second,  as  pro-slavery  /  the  third,  as  evasive  y 
the  fourth,  as  indefinite. 

The  electoral  vote  for  Mr.  LINCOLN  was  180 ;  for  Mr. 
BKECKENRIDGE,  72  ;  for  Mr.  DOUGLAS,  12  ;  for  Mr.  BELL,  39. 
The  popular  vote  for  LINCOLN  was  1,857,610  ;  for  BRECKEN- 
RIDGE,  847,953;  for  DOUGLAS,  1,365,976;  for  BELL,  590,631. 
Majority  against  Mr.  LINCOLN,  746,950.  He  was  the  first 
President  elected  by  a  sectional  vote  upon  sectional  issues. 


PRESIDENT  LINCOLN'S  QUALIFICATIONS. 

He  was  described  by  his  friends  as  an  honest  man,  a 
shrewd  lawyer  before  a  jury,  with  rough  good  sense,  and  a 
vein  of  humor  which  made  him  a  good  story-teller  and  a 
popular  stump-speaker.  In  the  canvass  with  Mr.  DOUGLAS 
for  the  Senatorship,  in  Illinois,  he  could  sometimes  turn  the 


2<2  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

argument  and  the  laugh  against  him,  though  a  man  of  ac 
knowledged  talents  and  an  able  debater.  Under  good  train 
ing  he  had  run  well  in  that  race,  though  distanced  by  Mr. 
DOUGLAS  ;  and  it  was  urged  that,  in  the  great  race  in  which 
there  was  the  Presidential  prize,  he  would  be  sure  to  come 
out  winner.  Two  rails  which  he  had  split  were  brought  into 
the  Convention  which  nominated  him,  as  the  symbols  of  his 
qualifications. 

His  opposers,  on  the  other  hand,  asserted,  that  in  legal 
knowledge  he  was  superficial ;  that  in  education  he  was  more 
deficient  than  any  former  President ;  that  in  political  experience 
he  was  more  deficient  than  any  excepting  President  TAYLOR  ;  that 
in  his  reasoning  he  did  not  exhibit  the  internal  relations  of  the 
subject,  on  the  basis  of  principles,  but  leaned  on  some  analogy, 
however  vulgar,  or  remote,  or  ludicrous,  which  often  led  him 
into  error,  from  his  not  comprehending  the  points  of  difference 
as  well  as  those  of  agreement ;  that  he  was  vacillating  in  his 
purposes,  and  was  not  qualified  to  stand  as  a  pilot  at  the  helm 
of  the  ship,  now  reeling  in  the  storm. 


DISUNION    SENTIMENTS    AND   PURPOSES    FROM    AN    EARLY    PERIOD. 

1789.  PRESIDENT  WASHINGTON  was  inaugurated  under  the 
new  Federal  Constitution,  March  4,  1789.  Congress  continued 
in  session  from  that  date  until  the  29th  of  September. 

In  this  first  session,  PIERCE  BUTLER,  Senator  from  South 
Carolina,  in  a  speech  in  the  Senate,  "  threatened  a  dissolution 
of  the  Union  with  regard  to  his  State,"  in  a  very  earnest,  ex 
cited  manner. 

The  occasion  of  this  threat  was  this :  Mr.  BUTLER,  as  a 
member  of  the  Convention  that  framed  the  Federal  Constitu 
tion,  had  consented  to  give  up  that  part  of  the  report  of  the 
committee  of  detail  which  required  "  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of 
the  members  present  in  each  House  to  pass  a  Navigation  Act" 
This  requirement  was  intended  to  protect  the  interests  of  the 
Southern  States  against  the  action  of  the  commercial  States ; 
and  leading  Southern  members  of  the  Convention  were  very 
strongly  in  favor  of  it ;  but  it  was  imprudently  given  up  by 
the  Southern  States. 


EARLY    DISUNION    SENTIMENTS    AND    PURPOSES.  273 

Mr.  BUTLER,  in  the  Convention,  said  "  he  considered  the 
interests  of  the  Southern  States  and  the  Northern  States  as 
different  as  the  interests  of  Russia  and  Turkey.  Being,  not 
withstanding,  desirous  of  conciliating  the  affection  of  the 
Eastern  States,  he  should  vote  against  requiring  two-thirds 
instead  of  a  majority." 

On  the  other  hand,  GEORGE  MASON,  of  Virginia,  said  :  "  The 
Southern  States  are  in  a  minority  in  both  Houses.  Is  it  to  be 
expected  that  they  will  deliver  themselves  bound  hand  and  foot 
to  the  Eastern  States,  and  enable  them  to  exclaim  in  the  words 
of  CROMWELL  on  a  certain  occasion  :  '  The  Lord  hath  delivered 
them  into  our  hands  ? ' : 

Mr.  BUTLER,  when  he  came  to  act  under  the  Constitution 
as  a  Senator,  found  that  a  "  Report  had  come  in,  with  very 
high  duties,  amounting  to  a  prohibition."  He  felt  mortified 
that  he  had,  in  the  Convention,  surrendered  the  interest  of  the 
Southern  States  by  his  vote,  and  indignant  that  those  whom 
he  endeavored  to  "  conciliate "  were  taking  an  ungenerous 

7  O  O 

advantage  of  his  concession.     This  seems  to  have   been   the 
first  threat  of  disunion  in  Congress. 

1790.  In  the  second  session  of  the  first  Congress,  a  bill  for 
the  Assumption  of  State  Debts  had  been  lost  in  the  House  by 
a  majority  of  two.  The  Eastern  members,  who  were  in  favor 
of  the  bill,  upon  this  "  threatened  secession  and  dissolution." 
So  strong  were  their  feelings,  that  Congress  could  do  no  busi 
ness  for  some  days.  See  pp.  34-38. 

1796.  In  the  Connecticut  Courant,  at  that  time  the  most 
ably  conducted  newspaper  in  the  State,  a  series  of  articles, 
written  with  great  force,  were  published  over  the  signature 
of  "  PELHAM,"  for  the  purpose  of  preparing  the  minds  of  the 
people  for  a  severance  of  the  Union.  In  the  first  article,  the 
writer  uses  the  following  language  : 

"  The  Northern  States  can  subsist  as  a  nation,  a  republic, 
without  any  connection  vnth  the  Southern  States.  It  cannot 
be  contested  that,  if  the  Southern  States  were  possessed  of  the 
same  political  ideas,  a  Union  would  be  still  more  desirable  than 
a  separation.  But  when  it  becomes  a  serious  question,  whether 


THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

we  shall  give  up  our  Government  or  part  with  the  States  south 
of  the  Potomac,  no  man  north  of  that  river,  whose  heart  is  not 
thoroughly  Democratic,  can  hesitate  what  decision  to  make. 

"  I  shall,  in  the  future  papers,  consider  some  of  the  great 
events  which  will  lead  to  a  separation  of  the  United  States  ; 
show  the  importance  of  retaining  their  present  Constitution, 
even  at  the  expense  of  a  separation  ;  endeavor  to  prove  the 
impossibility  of  a  Union  for  any  long  period  in  future,  both 
from  the  moral  and  political  habits  of  the  citizens  of  the  South 
ern  States  /  and,  finally,  examine  carefully  to  see  whether  we 
have  not  already  approached  to  the  era  when  they  must  he 
divided" 

And  in  order  to  inflame  the  passions  of  the  people  of  the 
State  against  the  Southern  States,  the  writer,  in  the-  same 
article,  adds :  "  Negroes  are  in  all  respects,  except  in  regard 
to  life  and  death,  the  cattle  of  the  Southern  States,,  If  they 
were  good  for  food,  the  probability  is  that  even  the  power  of 
destroying  their  lives  would  be  enjoyed  by  their  owners,  as 
fully  as  it  is  over  the  lives  of  their  cattle.  It  cannot  be  that 
their  laws  prohibit  the  owners  from  killing  their  slaves,  be 
cause  their  slaves  are  human  beings,  or  because  it  is  a  moral 
evil  to  destroy  them."  Connecticut  held  slaves  at  this  time. 

This  is  one  of  the  first  lessons  in  political  and  moral  hatred 
given  by  their  teachers  to  the  people  of  New  England.  It  is 
to  be  considered  that,  about  this  time,  JOHN  TRDMBULL,  the 
author  of  "  McFingal,"  JOEL  BARLOW,  OLIVER  WOLCOTT,  LEM 
UEL  HOPKINS,  Dr.  NATHAN  STRONG,  THEODORE  DWIGHT,  all  of 
them  able  men,  and  some  of  them  political  writers,  resided  in 
Hartford. 

And  what  was  the  occasion  of  sentiments  like  these  ?  The 
Southern  States,  in  the  pending  election,  had  declared  a  prefer 
ence  for  Mr.  JEFFERSON,  rather  than  for  a  Northern  candidate. 

1800.     For  the  state  of  feeling  about  this  time,  see  p.  56. 

1804.  It  is  generally  known  that,  after  the  election  of  Mr. 
JEFFERSON  in  1801,  against  the  strongest  opposition  in  New 
England  (see  p.  54),  leading  politicians  in  that  section,  being 
also  strongly  opposed  to  the  principles  upon  which  he  was 


EARLY   DISUNION    SENTIMENTS   AND    PURPOSES.  275 

elected,  and  the  measures  adopted  by  him,  became  desirous  of 
a  division  of  the  Union. 

On  this  subject  new  facts  have  been  recently  brought  to 
light,  by  the  publication  of  a  very  valuable  work,  HAMILTON'S 
History  of  the  Republic."  In  vol.  vii.  p.  771,  is  a  paper, 
drawn  up  by  his  father,  ALEXANDER  HAMILTON,  in  which, 
speaking  of  New  England,  he  says :  "  The  ill  opinion  and 
jealousy  of  the  ambition  of  Yirginia  is  no  inconsiderable 
proof  of  good  principles  in  that  country.  But  these  causes 
are  leading  on  to  an  opinion  that  a  dismemberment  of  the 
Union  is  expedient.  It  would  probably  suit  Mr.  BURR'S 
views  to  promote  this  result,  to  ~be  chief  of  the  Northern  por 
tion  •  and,  placed  at  the  head  of  the  State  of  New  York,  no 
man  would  be  more  likely  to  succeed." 

A  Senator  from  New  Hampshire,  WILLIAM  PLUMMER,  speak 
ing  in  the  Senate  of  the  purchase  of  Louisiana,  said :  "  Admit 
this  western  world  into  the  Union  ;  and  you  destroy  at  once 
the  weight  and  importance  of  the  Eastern  States,  and  compel 
them  to  establish  a  separate,  independent  empire  •  "  p.  775. 

A  clergyman  of  Massachusetts  soon  after — Feb.  2,  1804 — 
writes  to  this  Senator :  "  If  we  were  peaceably  severed  from 
the  rest  of  the  States  joined  to  us,  and  left  to  manage  our  own 
affairs,  in  our  own  way,  I  think  we  should  do  much  better  than 
now."  This  Senator  replied  :  "  I  hope  the  time  is  not  far  dis 
tant,  when  the  people  east  of  the  North  river  will  manage  their 
affairs  in  their  own  way,  without  being  embarrassed  by  regu 
lations  from  Yirginia,  and  that  the  sound  part  will  le  separate 
from  the  corrupt  /  "  p.  726. 

"  Late  in  February,  1804,"  says  an  officer  of  the  late  army 
of  the  United  States,  "  I  fell  in  company  with  an  old  acquaint 
ance,  who  told  me  that  a  division  of  the  United  States  was 
talked  of,  the  dividing  line  to  be  the  Potomac  or  the  Susque- 
hanna.  About  the  first  \veek  in  March,  I  saw  General  HAM 
ILTON  at  Albany,  and  acquainted  him  with  what  I  had  heard, 
mentioning  my  authority,  which  was  very  respectable.  The 
idea  of  disunion  he  could  not  hear  of  without  impatience,  and 
expressed  his  reprobation  of  it  in  strong  terms.  The  bare 
attempt  to  carry  such  a  plan  of  disunion  into  effect,  he  said, 
would  necessarily  throw  the  people  of  the  United  States  into 


276  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

two  great  parties,  geographically  defined  ;  that  the  Northern 
division  must  prevail  in  the  struggle  that  must  ensue,  but, 
whichever  might  prevail,  the  result  must  be  the  DESTRUCTION 
OF  THE  PRESENT  CONSTITUTION,  and  eventually  the  establishment 
of  separate  governments,  formed  on  principles  hostile  to  civil 
liberty."  (From  a  letter  dated  March  30,  1829,  Washington  ; 
signed  by  Major  HOOPS,  p.  779.) 

Senator  PLUMMER,  afterwards  Governor  of  New  Hamp 
shire,  stated  :  "  There  was  no  man  with  whom  I  conversed  so 
often,  and  fully,  and  freely,  as  with  ROGER  GRISWOLD,  then  a 
Member  of  Congress  from  Connecticut,  and  afterwards  Gov 
ernor  of  that  State.  He  was,  without  doubt  or  hesitation, 
decidedly  in  favor  of  dissolving  the  Union,  and  establishing 
a  Northern  Confederacy.  He  thought  it  might  be  effected 
peaceably,  without  a  recourse  to  arms ;  and  entered  into  a 
particular  detail  of  the  mode  of  effecting  it ;  "  p.  781. 

The  following  are  extracts  from  a  letter,  to  use  the  editor's 
words,  from  a  "  leading  Member  of  Congress "  *  to  OLIVER 
"WoLcoiT,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  under  WASHINGTON,  March 
11,  1804.  After  some  remarks  upon  the  opposition  felt  at  the 
North  towards  Virginia,  and  on  the  formation  of  a  "  Northern 
interest  in  Congress  "  by  the  union  of  parties,  and  of  AARON 
BURR  as  a  candidate  for  the  office  of  Governor  of  the  State  of 
New  York,  who,  if  elected,  might  be  placed  at  the  head  of  that 
Northern  interest,  and  of  an  interview  with  BURR,  for  the  pur 
pose  of  ascertaining  his  views  as  to  the  sectional  movement,  he 
proceeds  to  say :  u  In  forming  the  Northern  party,  it  is  im 
portant  to  consider  what  the  ultimate  views  of  that  party  ought 
to  be,  and  to  avoid,  as  much  as  possible,  embarrassing  the  party 
with  men  who  will  oppose  the  accomplishment  of  their  ultimate 
objects. 

"I  have  no  hesitation  myself  in  saying,  that  there  will 
be  no  safety  to  the  Northern  States  without  a  separation  from 
the  Confederacy.  The  balance  of  power  under  the  present 
Government,  is  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  Southern  States ; 
nor  can  that  balance  be  changed  o,r  destroyed.  The  extent 


*  This  "  leading  Member  of  Congress "  must  have  been  ROGER  GRISWOLD,  of 
Connecticut. 


EARLY    DISUNION    SENTIMENTS    AND    PURPOSES.  27 

and  increasing  population  of  those  States  must  forever  secure 
to  them  the  preponderance  which,  they  now  possess.  What 
ever  changes,  therefore,  take  place,  they  cannot  permanently 
restore  to  the  Northern  States  their  influence  in  the  Govern 
ment  ;  and  a  temporary  relief  can  be  of  no  importance.  The 
question,  then,  is,  can  it  be  safe  to  remain  under  a  government 
in  whose  measures  we  can  have  no  effective  agency  ?  If  the 
views  of  the  Southern  States  were  in  unison  with  ours — if  the 
system  of  policy  which  they  wish  to  pursue  equally  affected 
every  part  of  the  Union,  there  would  be  some  security  under 
their  management ;  and  although  we  might  be  excluded  from 
a  participation  in  the  power,  yet  we  might  expect  to  find  our 
interests  promoted  by  measures  which  promoted  their  own. 
But,  unfortunately,  that  is  not  the  case.  Their  enmity  to 
Commerce,  on  which  our  prosperity  depends,  is  riveted  and 
unyielding.  Besides,  there  is  an  inveterate  enmity  and  jeal 
ousy  of  the  Northern  States,  which  pervades  every  part  of 
the  Southern  and  Middle  States.  This  spirit  is  evidently  in 
creasing.  Since  they  have  obtained  the  power,  they  have 
become  arrogant,  and  appear  determined  to  carry  this  spirit 
into  all  classes  of  society,  with  a  view  of  riveting  the  preju 
dices  so  strongly  as  to  prevent  a  union  of  views  between  North 
and  South,  under  all  future  circumstances.  What,  then,  are 
we  to  expect  under  the  management  of  the  most  intelligent 
of  those  people  ?  Must  we  not  continue  to  pay  the  principal 
part  of  the  expenses  of  Government,  without  receiving,  in 
return,  either  patronage  or  protection  ?  *  *  * 

"  With  these  views,  I  should  deem  it  unfortunate  to  be 
compelled  to  place  any  man  at  the  head  of  the  Northern 
interest,  who  would  stop  short  of  the  object,  or  would  only 
use  his  influence  and  power  for  the  purpose  of  placing  himself 
at  the  head  of  the  whole  Confederacy  as  it  now  stands.  If 
gentlemen  in  New  York  should  entertain  similar  opinions,  it 
must  be  very  important  to  ascertain  what  the  ultimate  objects 
of  Col.  BURR  are.  It  must  occur  to  every  Federal  man  that 
objections  of  a  very  serious  nature  oppose  the  election  of  Col. 
BURR,  whether  that  election  is  viewed  in  relation  to  a  general 
union  of  the  Northern  States,  or  in  relation  to  the  power  which 
the  office  will  give  a  man  of  Col.  BURR'S  talents  and  ability  to 


278  V        THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

oppose  a  more  partial  Union,  if  it  should  be  attempted.  But, 
my  dear  sir,  what  else  can  we  do  ?  If  we  remain  inactive,  our 
ruin  is  certain.  Our  friends  will  make  no  attempt  alone.  By 
supporting  Mr.  BURR,  we  gain  some  support,  although  it  is  of 
a  doubtful  nature,  of  which  God  knows  we  have  cause  enough 
to  be  jealous.  In  short,  1  see  nothing  else  left  for  us.  The 
project  which  we  had  formed,  was  to  induce,  if  possible,  Legis 
latures  of  the  three  New  England  States  who  remain  Federal, 
to  commence  measures  which  should  call  for  a  reunion  of  the 
Northern  States.  The  extent  of  these  measures,  and  the 
rapidity  with  which  they  shall  be  followed  up,  must  be  gov 
erned  by  circumstances.  The  magnitude  and  jealousy  of  Mas 
sachusetts  would  render  it  necessary  that  the  operation  should 
be  commenced  there."  P.  781. 

In  this  expected  interview  between  GRISWOLD  and  BURR,  the 
latter  declared  that  "  the  Northern  States  must  be  governed  by 
Virginia,  or  govern  Virginia,  and  that  there  was  no  middle 
course."  He  also  presented  other  views  satisfactory  to  the 
former.  P.  784. 

So  thoroughly  convinced  was  ALEXANDER  HAMILTON  that 
there  was  a  plan  in  progress  for  the  separation  of  the  Union, 
that,  on  the  Saturday  before  the  duel  to  which  he  was  chal 
lenged  by  AARON  BURR,  he  said  to  Col.  JOHN  TRUMBULL,  "  with 
a  look  of  deep  meaning :  "  "  You  are  going  to  Boston.  You 
will  see  the  principal  men  there.  Tell  them  from  ME,  as  MY 
request,  for  God's  sake  to  cease  their  conversations  and  threat- 
enings  about  a  separation  of  the  Union.  It  must  hang  together 
as  long  as  it  can  be  made  to."  P.  822.  (This  advice  was.  as 
it  were,  his  dying  bequest.) 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  the  position  of  the  Northern 
States  and  the  reasonings  of  her  statesmen  in  1804,  were  sub 
stantially  the  same  as  the  position  of  the  South  and  the  reason 
ings  of  her  statesmen  in  1860.  In  both  cases  there  had  been 
a  palpable  violation  of  the  Federal  Constitution  ;  in  one  case 
by  the  purchase  of  Louisiana,  and  in  the  other  by  the  personal 
liberty  laws  of  fourteen  Northern  States.  The  North  did  not 
feel  secure  in  the  one  case,  and  the  Southern  States  did  not  feel 
secure  in  the  other.  The  Northern  States  felt  released  from 


EAKLY    DISUNION    SENTIMENTS    AND    PURPOSES.  279 

their  obligations  to  the  compact  in  the  one  case,  and  the  South 
felt  released  from  their  obligations  to  the  compact  in  the  other. 
Both  reasoned  correctly  from  the  same  premises.  In  the  one 
case,  Mr.  JEFFERSON  was  again  coming  into  office,  deemed 
hostile  to  the  North;  in  the  other,  Mr.  LINCOLN  was  coming 
into  office,  deemed  hostile  to  the  South.  Many  at  the  North 
believed,  in  1804,  that  they  could  prosper  more  without  the 
Southern  States.  Many  at  the  South  believed,  in  1860,  that 
they  could  prosper  more  without  the  Northern  States  than 
with  them.  Both  wanted  a  peaceable  separation. 

This  letter  from  ROGER  GKISWOLD  is  remarkable  as  coming 
from  the  most  able  and  influential  man  of  Connecticut  at  that 
time — from  a  man  who  was  regarded  by  both  political  parties 
as  one  of  the  ablest  in  the  whole  country.  It  was  the  boast  of 
JOHN  RANDOLPH  that  "  he  was  elected  to  Congress  to  talk  down 
ROGER  GRISWOLD,"  whom  he  afterwards  spoke  of  as  a  "  saga 
cious  statesman."  He  was  a  leading  Member  of  Congress 
thirteen  years ;  was  appointed  Secretary  of  War,  but  declined 
the  appointment ;  was  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Con 
necticut  ;  was  Governor  of  the  State  ;  was  a  man  of  the  highest 
patriotism,  and  of  the  highest  moral  sentiment.  This  letter 
was  addressed  to  OLIVER  WOLCOTT,  formerly  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  a  man  of  the  strictest  integrity,  of  large  good  sense 
and  practical  wisdom. 

Many  throughout  Massachusetts,  and  other  parts  of  New 
England,  entertained  the  same  views  and  purposes. 

1808.  The  embargo  was  laid  by  Congress  on  the  22d  of  De 
cember,  1807.  In  1808,  there  were  strong  demonstrations  of  op 
position  to  it.  We  have  the  authority  of  JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS  for 
saying  that  "  the  people  were  constantly  instigated  to  forcible 
resistance  against  it,  and  juries  often  acquitted  the  violators  of 
it  upon  the  ground  that  it  was  unconstitutional,  assumed  in  the 
face  of  a  solemn  decision  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United 
States."  A  separation  of  the  Union  was  stimulated  in  the  pub 
lic  prints,  and  a  convention  of  delegates  from  the  New  Eng 
land  States,  to  meet  in  New  Haven,  was  intended  and  pro 
posed. 

Mr.  JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS,  in  his  letter  to  Mr.  GILES,  urged 
19 


280  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

that  a  "  continuance  of  the  embargo  much  longer  would  cer 
tainly  be  met  by  forcible  resistance,  supported  by  the  Legis 
lature  (of  Massachusetts),  and  probably  by  the  judiciary  of  the 
State."  »'**'«  That  the  object  of  the  leaders  had  been, 
for  several  years,  the  dissolution  of  the  Union,  and  the  estab 
lishment  of  a  separate  confederation,  he  knew  from  unequivocal 
evidence,  although  not  provable  in  a  court  of  law." — NILES' 
Register,  vol.  35,  p.  138. 

These  threatenings  and  omens  of  the  dissolution  of  the 
Union,  had  an  effect  to  procure  the  repeal  of  the  embargo. 
March  1,  1809,  just  before  the  retirement  of  Mr.  JEFFERSON 
from  the  Presidential  office.  See  p.  59.  The  ground  taken 
by  the  people  of  New  England  in  their  violent  opposition  to 
the  embargo,  was,  that  it  was  unconstitutional ;  that  the  East 
ern  States  adopted  the  Constitution  for  the  protection  of  their 
commerce,  and  that  it  should  not  be  perverted  to  its  destruction. 

It  is  somewhat  remarkable  that,  while  disunion  sentiments 
existed  during  the  era  marked  by  the  foregoing  epochs,  the 
manifestation  of  them  was  more  marked  about  the  time  of  each 
Presidential  election. 

The  two  principal  grounds  of  complaint  against  the  Federal 
Government  and  the  South  were,  that  the  commercial  interests 
of  the  North  were  sacrificed  by  that  Government,  and  that  the 
North  did  not  have  its  share  of  the  Federal  offices.  It  had  been 
distinctly  stated  in  the  Federal  Convention,  by  Mr.  RUFUS  KING 
and  Mr.  GORHAM,  members  from  Massachusetts,  that  the  East 
ern  States  expected  certain  commercial  advantages  from  the  new 
Federal  Constitution ;  and  FISHER  AMES  declared,  in  the  Con 
vention  of  Massachusetts  that  adopted  that  Constitution,  that 
the  State  had  secured  "  great  advantages  with  respect  to  navi 
gation." 

When  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut  found  that  they  had 
lost  those  advantages,  by  the  restrictions  upon  commerce  im 
posed  by  the  Federal  Government — namely,  the  embargo,  the 
non-intercourse,  and  the  war — they  became  convinced  that  the 
Union  had  lost  its  value,  and  the  Constitution  its  binding  force. 
Hence  the  leading  men,  and  the  best  men,  looked  towards  a 
separation  of  the  States  as  a  relief  from  those  restrictions. 

They  hoped  to  accomplish  this  separation  peaceably,  and  to 


EARLY    DISUNION    SENTIMENTS    AND    PURPOSES.  281 

act  honorably  in  the  discharge  of  their  share  of  the  public  debt. 
Mr.  GRISWOLD,  in  the  letter  mentioned  above,  says:  "I  have 
examined  the  interest  which  the  people  of  the  Northern  States 
have  in  the  funds,  and  I  find  that  it  is  considerably  less  than  the 
proportion  of  the  debts  that  these  States  ought  to  pay.  This 
arises  from  the  large  purchases  made  by  foreigners  in  the 
funded  debt,  so  that  it  will  be  in  our  power  to  charge  ourselves 
only  with  our  just  proportion  of  the  debt,  and  still  do  justice  to 
our  own  people." 

Very  little,  you  might  almost  say  nothing,  was  said  about 
the  right  to  separate  from  the  other  States.  Their  whole  history 
had  familiarized  their  minds  to  the  idea  that  governments  derive 
their  just  power  from  the  consent  of  the  governed ;  that  this 
was  true  of  the  colonial  governments,  and  of  the  State  govern 
ments.  They  had  exercised  the  right  to  change  their  govern 
ment  when  they  left  the  tyrannical  government  of  England, 
and  formed  governments  of  their  own  on  Massachusetts  Bay, 
and  on  Connecticut  river.  They  had  exercised  this  right  when 
they  formed  the  Confederation  of  1643,  which  was  declared  to 
be  a  perpetual ;  "  and  they  had  separated  from  that  confederacy 
in  the  exercise  of  the  same  right.  They  had  exercised  that 
right  in  throwing  off  their  allegiance  to  England,  and  claiming 
allegiance  to  the  State,  each  being  independent.  They  had 
exercised  that  right  in  adopting  a  Federal  Constitution,  called 
"  The  Articles  of  Confederation,"  by  which  they  formed  a 
Union,  which  was,  in  those  articles,  declared  to  be  "  perpet 
ual  ; "  and  then,  in  the  exercise  of  the  same  right,  they  had 
separated  themselves  from  that  Confederation  or  Union.  In  the 
exercise  of  that  right,  they  had  formed  a  new  Confederation  or 
Union,  by  the  adoption  of  a  New  Federal  Constitution  ;  and, 
in  the  exercise  of  the  same  right,  they  felt  that  they  could 
separate  from  that  Confederation  or  Union  whenever  they 
judged  that  it  did  not  answer  the  ends  for  which  they  had 
adopted  the  Constitution  which  created  it. 

The  current  question  in  those  times  was,  "  Would  a  division 
of  the  Union  be  beneficial  ? "  This  question  was  discussed 
more  or  less  in  colleges,  in  newspapers,  and  in  private  circles. 
It  was  during  this  period,  when  restrictions  were  forced  upon 
commerce,  by  the  embargo,  and  non-intercourse,  and  the  war, 


282  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

that  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut  passed  certain  laws,  which 
would  have  the  effect  to  nullify  certain  laws  passed  by  Congress, 
and  certain  Presidential  acts.  The  following  Resolutions, 
adopted  by  the  Legislature  of  Connecticut,  February,  1809, 
show  the  views  prevalent  at  that  time.  After  adverting,  in 
their  Address  to  the  People  of  Connecticut,  to  violations  of  the 
Constitution  by  the  Federal  Government,  to  the  importance  of 
preserving  the  "  reserved  rights  of  the  State,"  and  "  its  sover 
eignty,"  they  say, 

"  After  solemn  deliberation  and  advisement  thereon,  the 
General  Assembly  are  decided  in  the  opinion,  and  do  Resolve, 
that  the  Acts  aforesaid  are  a  permanent  system  of  measures, 
abandoning  undeniable  rights  ;  interdicting  the  exercise  of  con 
stitutional  privileges,  and  unprecedented  in  the  annals  of  na 
tions  ;  and  do  contain  provisions  for  exercising  arbitrary  powers 
grievous  to  the  good  people  of  this  State,  dangerous  to  their 
common  liberties,  incompatible  with  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  encroaching  upon  the  immunities  of  this  State. 

"  Resolved,  That  to  preserve  the  Union,  and  support  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  it  becomes  the  duty  of  the 
Legislatures  of  the  States,  in  such  a  crisis  of  affairs,  vigilantly 
to  watch  over,  and  vigorously  to  maintain,  the  powers  not  dele 
gated  to  the  United  States,  but  reserved  to  the  States  respect 
ively,  or  to  the  people  ;  and  that  a  due  regard  to  this  duty  will 
not  permit  this  Assembly  to  assist,  or  concur  in  giving  effect  to 
the  aforesaid  unconstitutional  Act,  passed  to  enforce  the  em 
bargo. 

"  Resolved,  That  this  Assembly  highly  approved  of  the  con 
duct  of  his  Excellency,  the  Governor,  in  declining  to  designate 
persons  to  carry  into  effect,  by  the  aid  of  military  power,  the 
Act  of  the  United  States  enforcing  the  embargo ;  and  that 
his  letter  addressed  to  the  Secretary  for  the  Department  of 
War,  containing  his  refusal  to  make  such  designation,  be  re 
corded  in  the  public  records  of  this  State,  as  an  example  to 
persons  who  may  hold  places  of  distinguished  trust  in  this  free 
and  independent  republic. 

u  Resolved,  That  the  persons  holding  executive  offices  under 
this  State  are  restrained,  by  the  duties  which  they  owe  this 
State,  from  affording  any  official  aid  or  cooperation  in  the 


EARLY    DISUNION    SENTIMENTS    AND    PURPOSES.  283 

execution  of  the  Act  aforesaid ;  and  that  his  Excellency,  the 
Governor,  be  requested,  as  commander-in-chief  of  the  military 
force  of  this  State,  to  cause  these  resolutions  to  be  published  in 
general  orders  :  And  that  the  Secretary  of  this  State  be,  and 
he  is  hereby,  directed  to  transmit  copies  of  the  same  to  the 
several  sheriffs  and  town-clerks. 

"  Resolved,  That  his  Excellency,  the  Governor  be  requested 
to  communicate  the  foregoing  resolutions  to  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  with  an  assurance  that  this  Assembly  regret 
that  they  are  thus  obliged,  under  a  sense  of  paramount  public 
duty,  to  assert  the  unquestionable  right  of  this  State  to  abstain 
from  any  agency  in  the  execution  of  measures  which  are  uncon 
stitutional  and  despotic. 

"  Resolved,  That  this  Assembly  accord  in  sentiment  with 
the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Commonwealth 
of  Massachusetts,  that  it  is  expedient  to  effect  certain  alterations 
in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  and  will  zealously 
cooperate  with  that  Commonwealth,  and  any  other  of  the 
States,  in  all  legal  and  constitutional  measures  for  procuring 
such  amendments  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  as 
shall  be  judged  necessary  to  obtain  more  protection  and  defence 
for  commerce  ;  and  to  give  to  the  commercial  States  their  fair 
and  just  consideration  in  the  Union,  and  for  affording  perma 
nent  security,  as  well  as  present  relief,  from  the  oppressive 
measures  under  which  they  now  suffer." 

1812-1815.  Louisiana  was  admitted  into  the  Union  as  a 
State,  April  8,  1812.  To  this  there  was  strong  opposition  at 
the  North — so  strong,  that  the  admission  was  declared  to  be  a 
sufficient  ground  for  dissolving  the  Union  ;  see  p.  60.  Wai- 
was  declared  against  Great  Britain,  June  18, 1812.  To  this  there 
was  very  strong  opposition.  The  Federal  party  prevailed  in  the 
elections  in  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  and  New 
York.  The  opposition  to  the  war  culminated  in  the  Convention 
which  assembled  in  Hartford,  December,  15,  1814-.  To  this 
Convention  Massachusetts  sent  twelve  delegates,  Connecticut 
seven,  and  Rhode  Island  four,  by  the  action  of  their  Legisla 
tures.  Three  were  sent  by  local  conventions  in  New  Hamp 
shire  and  Vermont.  See  pp.  65-67. 


284  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

These  States  put  themselves  squarely  on  the  Federal  Con 
stitution.  They  regarded  the  State  governments  as  coordinate 
with  the  Federal  government,  and  entitled  to  judge  of  the  con 
duct  of  that  government,  created,  as  it  was,  by  the  States. 
When  the  Executive  of  the  Federal  government  called  on  Mas 
sachusetts,  in  1812,  to  supply  troops  to  carry  on  war  against 
Great  Britain,  Governor  CALEB  STRONG,  who  was  a  member 
of  the  Federal  Convention  that  framed  the  Constitution,  laid 
before  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court  of  that  State  the  following 
questions : 

I.  Whether  the  commanders-in-chief  of  the  militia  of  the 
several  States  have  a  right  to  determine  whether  any  of  the 
exigencies   contemplated   by  the   Constitution   of   the  United 
States  exist,  so  as  to  require  them  to  place  the  militia,  or  any 
part  of  it,  in  the  service  of  the  United  States,  to  be  commanded 
by  him,  pursuant  to  Acts  of  Congress. 

II.  Whether,  when  either  of  the  exigencies  exist  authorizing 
the  employment  of  the  militia  in  the  service  of  the  United 
States,  the  militia  thus  employed  can  be  lawfully  commanded 
by  any  officer  but  of  the  militia,  except  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States  ? 

THEOPHILUS  PARSONS  was  at  that  time  Chief  Justice  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Massachusetts,  who,  in  judicial  wisdom,  was 
on  the  same  level  with  JOHN  JAY,  OLIVER  ELLSWORTH,  and 
JOHN  MARSHALL.  The  answer  of  the  Court  was,  "  That  the 
Governors  of  the  States  could  alone  determine  whether  the 
exigencies  alluded  to  existed  ;  and  if  they  did  so  determine,  the 
President  could  command  them  only  through  the  State  militia 
officers.  Because,  if  the  President  and  Congress  had  exclusive 
right  to  determine  when  such  exigencies  existed,  which  author 
ize  the  calling  out  of  the  militia,  and  the  exclusive  command  of 
them  when  called  out,  there  was  at  once  a  military  consolidation 
of  the  States,  without  any  constitutional  remedy."  See  vol. 
viii.  Mass.  Reports. 

President  MADISON  took  no  measures  to  procure  a  compli 
ance  with  the  unconstitutional  requisition.  He  had  too  much 
wisdom  to  attempt  to  enforce  a  requisition  with  which  the 
Governor  of  Massachusetts  had  refused  to  comply,  upon  con 
stitutional  ground. 


EARLY   DISUNION    SENTIMENTS    AND   PURPOSES.  285 

All  thanks  to  "  high-minded  men,  who  their  duties  know, 
but  know  their  rights,  and,  knowing,  dare  maintain."  This 
was  the  sentiment  that  pervaded  those  two  States  at  that  time, 
when  Governor  STRONG  and  Governor  GRISWOLD  refused  to  call 
out  the  militia,  at  the  call  of  the  Secretary  of  War.  The  Legis 
latures  of  the  two  States  approved  of  the  course  of  the  two  chief 
magistrates. 

1820.  MISSOURI  applied  for  admission  into  the  Union,  Feb 
ruary  13,  1829.  A  Northern  man  moved  an  amendment  to 
the  Bill,  that  the  inhabitants  of  Missouri  should  not  be  allowed 
to  hold  slaves,  which  was  adopted  by  Northern  votes,  in  the 
House.  It  was  a  disunion  movement  in  its  origin  and  effects. 
So  it  was  regarded  at  the  time  by  great  numbers,  among  whom 
was  Mr.  JEFFERSON.  u  The  coincidence,"  said  he,  u  of  a  marked 
principle,  moral  and  political,  with  a  geographical  line  once 
conceived,  I  feared  would  never  be  obliterated  from  the  mind  ; 
that  it  would  be  recurring  on  every  occasion,  and  renewing 
irritation,  until  it  would  kindle  such  a  mutual  and  mortal 
hatred  as  to  render  separation  preferable  to  eternal  discord." 
See  p.  76,  and  onward. 

1824-1828-1832.  The  Tariff  laws  of  these  years  were 
Northern  measures,  passed  by  Northern  members,  in  opposi 
tion  to  the  votes  of  the  Southern  States,  with  some  exceptions. 
Their  influence  produced  disunion  sentiments  and  measures, 
as  the  Ordinance  of  Nullification,  and  Resolutions  passed  by 
the  Legislatures  of  Southern  States.  See  pp.  100-114. 

1836-1840.  The  presentation  of  petitions,  by  Northern 
Members  of  Congress,  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  the  circu 
lation  of  incendiary  publications  by  Northern  Abolitionists, 
who  were  themselves  opposed  to  the  Federal  Union,  produced 
disunion  sentiments  in  the  Southern  States.  See  pp.  115-132. 

1841-1845.  The  admission  of  Texas  into  the  Union  created 
great  sectional  animosity,  especially  in  Massachusetts,  the  Legis 
lature  of  which  sent  a  proposition  to  one  of  her  Senators,  to  be 
presented  to  Congress,  for  a  dissolution  of  the  Union.  See  pp. 
133-136. 


286  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

1845-1849.  The  Wilmot  Proviso,  passed  in  the  lower 
House  in  Congress,  produced  a  strong  disunion  feeling  at  the 
South.  See  pp.  145,  146,  147. 

1849-1853.  For  this  era,  in  which  the  Compromise  Mea 
sures  were  passed,  see  pp.  148-174. 

1853-1857.  For  the  disunion  sentiments  prevailing  in  this 
era,  while  Kansas  was  under  consideration,  see  pp.  175-186. 

1857-1861.  For  the  sectional  and  disunion  sentiments 
prevailing  in  this  era,  when  HELPER'S  book  was  indorsed  by 
Members  of  Congress,  and  JOHN  BROWN  invaded  Virginia, 
see  pp.  185-231. 

PEACE   PROPOSITIONS. 

I.  The  RESOLUTIONS  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia, 
January  19,  1861.     See  p.  229. 

II.  THE  PEACE  CONGRESS,  assembled  at  Washington,  Feb 
ruary  4,  1861,  composed  of  delegates  from  Maine,  New  Hamp 
shire,   Vermont,   Massachusetts,   Rhode    Island,    Connecticut, 
New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois, 
Iowa,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  Kentucky, 
Tennessee,  and  Missouri. 

Ex-President  JOHN  TYLER  was  appointed  president.  A 
committee  was  appointed,  of  one  from  each  State,  of  which 
JAMES  GUTHRIE,  of  Kentucky,  was  chairman.  He  brought 
forward  a  Report  of  the  Majority,  recommending  that  several 
amendments  be  made  to  the  Constitution. 

ROGER  T.  BALDWIN,  of  Connecticut,  brought  forward  a 
Minority  Report  dissenting  from  the  other,  or  rather  reject 
ing  it. 


ARTICLE  xiii.,  SEC.  1. — In  all  the  present  territory  of  the 
United  States,  north  of  the  parallel  of  36°  30'  of  north  latitude, 


287 

involuntary  servitude,  except  in  punishment  of  crime,  is  pro 
hibited.  In  all  the  present  territory  south  of  that  line,  the 
status  of  persons  held  to  involuntary  service  or  labor,  as  it  now 
exists,  shall  not  be  changed ;  nor  shall  any  law  be  passed  by 
Congress,  or  the  Territorial  Legislature,  to  hinder  or  prevent 
the  taking  of  such  persons  from  any  of  the  States  of  this  Union 
to  said  territory,  nor  to  impair  the  rights  arising  from  said 
relation  ;  but  the  same  shall  be  subject  to  judicial  cognizance 
in  the  Federal  courts,  according  to  the  course  of  the  common 
law.  When  any  Territory  north  or  south  of  said  line,  within 
such  boundary  as  Congress  may  prescribe,  shall  contain  a 
population  equal  to  that  required  for  a  member  of  Congress, 
it  shall,  if  its  form  of  government  be  republican,  be  admitted 
into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States, 
with  or  without  involuntary  servitude,  as  the  constitution  of 
such  State  may  provide. 

SEC.  2. — No  territory  shall  be  acquired  by  the  United 
States,  except  by  discovery  and  for  naval  and  commercial 
stations,  depots,  and  transit  routes,  without  the  concurrence 
of  a  majority  of  all  the  Senators  from  States  which  allow 
involuntary  servitude,  and  a  majority  of  all  the  Senators  from 
States  which  prohibit  that  relation ;  nor  shall  territory  be 
acquired  by  treaty,  unless  the  votes  of  a  majority  of  the 
Senators  from  each  class  of  States  hereinbefore  mentioned  be 
cast  as  a  part  of  the  two-thirds  majority  necessary  to  the  rati 
fication  of  such  treaty. 

SEC.  3. — Neither  the  Constitution,  nor  any  amendment 
thereof,  shall  be  construed  to  give  Congress  power  to  regulate, 
abolish,  or  control,  within  any  State,  the  relation  established  or 
recognized  by  the  laws  thereof  touching  persons  held  to  labor  or 
involuntary  service  therein,  nor  to  interfere  with  or  abolish  in 
voluntary  service  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  without  the  con 
sent  of  Maryland,  and  without  the  consent  of  the  owners,  or 
making  the  owners  who  do  not  consent  just  compensation  ;  nor 
the  power  to  interfere  with  or  prohibit  Representatives  and 
others  from  bringing  with  them  to  the  District  of  Columbia, 
retaining,  and  taking  away,  persons  so  held  to  labor  or  service  ; 
nor  the  power  to  interfere  with  or  abolish  involuntary  service 
in  places  under  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States 


288  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

within  those  States  and  Territories  where  the  same  is  established 
or  recognized  ;  nor  the  power  to  prohibit  the  removal  or  trans 
portation  ofpersons  held  to  labor  or  involuntary  service  in  any 
State  or  Territory  of  the  United  States  to  any  other  State  or 
Territory  thereof  where  it  is  established  or  recognized  by  law  or 
usage,  and  the  right,  during  transportation  by  sea  or  river,  of 
touching  at  ports,  shores,  and  landings,  and  of  landing  in  case 
of  distress,  shall  exist ;  but  not  the  right  of  transit  in  or  through 
any  State  or  Territory,  or  of  sale  or  traffic,  against  the  laws 
thereof.  Nor  shall  Congress  have  power  to  authorize  any  higher 
rate  of  taxation  on  persons  held  to  labor  or  service  than  on  land. 
The  bringing  into  the  District  of  Columbia  of  persons  held  to 
labor  or  service,  for  sale,  or  placing  them  in  depots  to  be  after 
wards  transferred  to  other  places  for  sale  as  merchandise,  is  pro 
hibited. 

SEC.  4. — The  third  paragraph  of  the  second  section  of  the 
fourth  article  of  the  Constitution  shall  not  be  construed  to  pre 
vent  any  of  the  States,  by  appropriate  legislation,  and  through 
the  action  of  their  judicial  and  ministerial  officers,  from  enforc 
ing  the  delivery  of  fugitives  from  labor  to  the  person  to  whom 
such  service  or  labor  is  due. 

SEC.  5. — The  foreign  slave-trade  is  hereby  forever  prohibited ; 
and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  Congress  to  pass  laws  to  prevent  the 
importation  of  slaves,  coolies,  or  persons  held  to  service  or  labor, 
into  the  United  States  and  the  Territories,  from  places  beyond 
the  limits  thereof. 

SEC.  6. — The  first,  third,  and  fifth  sections,  together  with 
this  section  of  these  amendments,  and  the  third  paragraph  of 
the  second  section  of  the  first  article  of  the  Constitution,  and 
the  third  paragraph  of  the  second  section  of  the  fourth  article 
thereof,  shall  not  be  amended  or  abolished  without  the  consent 
of  all  the  States. 

SEC.  7. — Congress  shall  provide  by  law  that  the  United 
States  shall  pay  to  the  owner  the  full  value  of  his  fugitive  from 
labor,  in  all  cases  where  the  marshal,  or  other  officer  whose  duty 
it  was  to  arrest  such  fugitive,  was  prevented  from  so  doing  by 
violation  or  intimidation  from  mobs  or  riotous  assemblages ;  or 
when,  after  arrest,  such  fugitive  was  rescued  by  like  violence  or 
intimidation,  and  the  owner  thereby  deprived  of  the  same ;  and 


289 

the  acceptance  of  such  payment  shall  preclude  the  owner  from 
further  claim  to  such  fugitive.  Congress  shall  provide  by  law 
for  securing  to  the  citizens  of  each  State  the  privileges  and  im 
munities  of  citizens  in  the  several  States. 

Section  1  of  Mr.  GUTHRIE'S  Report,  was  adopted  by  the  Peace 
Congress,  all  the  New  England  States,  except  Rhode  Island, 
voting  against  it. 

Section  2  was  adopted,  the  New  England  States  voting 
against  it,  except  Ehode  Island. 

Section  3  was  adopted,  the  New  England  States  voting 
against  it,  except  Rhode  Island. 

Section  4  was  adopted,  the  New  England  States  voting 
against  it,  except  Rhode  Island. 

Section  5  was  adopted,  the  New  England  States  voting  for 
it,  except  Maine  and  Massachusetts. 

Section  6  was  adopted,  the  New  England  States  voting 
against  it,  except  Rhode  Island. 

Section  7  was  adopted,  the  New  England  States  voting 
against  it,  except  Rhode  Island  and  New  Hampshire ;  Massachu 
setts,  as  appears,  not  voting. 

The  vote  of  New  York  was  divided  on  these  several  votes, 
and  so  lost.  The  votes  of  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio, 
Illinois,  and  Indiana,  were  given  in  the  affirmative.  The  votes 
of  the  Southern  Border  States  were  given  in  the  affirmative, 
except  Missouri,  which,  on  the  last,  was  given  in  the  negative. 

The  plan  of  adjustment,  thus  voted  for,  was,  by  the  request 
of  the  Convention,  presented  by  President  TYLER  to  Congress, 
through  Vice-President  BRECKENRIDGE.  The  Senate  immediately 
appointed  a  committee  of  five,  of  which  Mr.  CRITTENDEN  was 
chairman,  who  reported  in  favor  of  it,  next  day,  February  28, 
1861. 

Mr.  SEWARD  presented  the  counter  Report,  and  a  substitute. 

Mr.  CRITTENDEN  moved  that  the  above  plan  of  adjustment 
and  conciliation  should  be  substituted  for  his  own.  This  was 
defeated,  seven  Senators  voting  for  the  motion,  and  twenty- 
four  against. 

The  question  of  adopting  the  CRITTENDEN  Compromise  came 
up,  whereupon  Mr.  CLARKE,  of  New  Hampshire,  proposed  a 
substitute.  This  substitute,  which,  in  substance,  was,  "  The 


290  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

Constitution,  as  it  now  is,  is  sufficient,"  was  adopted  by  a  vote 
of  twenty-five  Republicans  in  favor,  and  of  twenty-one  Demo 
crats  and  two  BELL-EVEEETT  conservatives,  opposed  to  it,  and 
in  favor  of  the  CRITTENDEN  Compromise. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  this  substitute,  thus  adopted,  declares 
that  "  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  are  ample  for  the  pre 
servation  of  the  Union  and  the  protection  of  all  the  material 
interests  of  the  country."  Yet  many  of  them  who  adopted 
it  did  not  afterward  find  a  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution 
ample  for  the  preservation  of  the  Union,"  but  went  outside  of 
the  Constitution,  trampling  it  under  their  feet,  for  the  alleged 
purpose  of  preserving  the  very  Union  they  would  not  take 
legitimate  means  to  save.  Had  those  Senators  seen  fit  to  vote 
for  the  CRITTENDEN  Compromise,  they  would  have  satisfied  a 
majority  of  the  country,  and  even  such  men  as  Senator  DAVIS 
and  Senator  TOOMBS,  as  Mr.  DOUGLAS  declared  in  the  Senate. 

III.  THE  COMMISSIONERS  of  South  Carolina  were  sent  to 
Washington  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  peace  and  friendly 
relations.  See  p.  228. 

IY.  THE  COMMISSIONERS  of  the  Confederate  States,  JOHN 
FORSYTH  and  MARTIN  CRAWFORD,  were  sent  to  Washington  for 
the  purpose  of  "  negotiating  peace  and  friendly  relations."  See 
p.  314. 

Y.  NEGOTIATIONS  for  peace  were  entrusted  to  ALEXANDER  II. 
STEPHENS,  July,  1863,  when  he,  at  Hampton  Roads,  was  rebuffed 
by  the  authorities  at  Washington. 

YI.  NEGOTIATIONS  for  peace,  undertaken  by  C.  C.  CLAY  and 
J.  J.  HOLCOMBE,  and  GEORGE  SANDERS,  through  HORACE  GEEELEY, 
July,  1864,  at  Niagara  Falls,  which  failed  in  consequence  of  Mr. 
LINCOLN'S  changing  his  mind. 

The  Southern  States  had  a  right  to  expect  a  peaceable  solu 
tion.  The  Federal  Constitution  gives  no  authority  to  the  Fed 
eral  Government  to  make  war  on  a  delinquent  State.  Presi 
dent  BUCHANAN  very  properly  declared,  in  his  Message  in  De 
cember,  1860,  that  under  the  Federal  Constitution,  there  is  no 


PROPOSITIONS   FOR   PEACE.  293 

authority  to  coerce  a  State.  Congress  adjourned  on  the  3d  of 
March,  1861,  without  making  any  provision  for  the  employment 
of  military  force,  though  their  attention  had  "been  repeatedly 
called  to  the  subject. 

Leading  editors  in  different  parts  of  the  country  had  declared 
that  it  was  better  to  let  the  seceded  States  depart,  than  to  keep 
them  in  the  Union  by  force.  For  instance,  the  New  York 
Tribune,  November  9,  1860 :  "  Whenever  a  considerable 
section  of  our  Union  shall  deliberately  resolve  to  go  out,  we 
shall  resist  all  coercive  measures  to  keep  them  in." 

SALMON  P.  CHASE,  according  to  the  testimony  of  General 
FRANK  BLAIR,  said,  about  the  commencement  of  the  war : 
"  They  are  not  worth  fighting  for." 

General  SCOTT,  in  his  letter  of  January,  1861,  says,  at  the 
close :  "  But  even  this  refusal  would  be  unnecessary,  as  the 
foregoing  views  eschew  the  idea  of  invading  a  seceded  State." 
On  the  3d  of  March,  1861,  he  gave  this  advice  :  "  In  the  highly 
disordered  condition  of  our  (late)  so  happy  and  glorious  Union, 
say  to  the  seceded  States  4  Wayward  sisters,  depart  in  peace.' ' 

EDWARD  EVERETT,  in  a  letter  dated  Washington,  January  2, 
1861,  to  a  committee  of  citizens  of  Boston  who  were  about  to 
assemble  in  Faneuil  Hall,  said :  "  To  expect  to  hold  fifteen 
States  in  the  Union  by  force,  is  presumptuous.  The  idea  of  a 
civil  war,  accompanied  as  it  would  be  by  a  servile  insurrection, 
is  too  monstrous  to  be  entertained  for  a  moment.  If  our  sister 
States  must  leave  us,  in  the  name  of  Heaven,  let  them  go  in 
peace." 

Mr.  LINCOLN,  when  in  Congress,  1848,  used  the  following 
language :  "  Any  people,  anywhere,  being  inclined  and  having 
the  power,  have  the  right  to  rise  up  and  shake  off  the  existing 
Government,  and  form  a  new  one  that  suits  them  better.  Nor 
is  this  right  confined  to  cases  where  the  people  of  one  existing 
government  may  choose  to  exercise  it.  Any  people  that  can, 
may  revolutionize,  putting  down  a  minority  intermingled  with 
or  near  about  them,  who  may  oppose  them."  And  after  the 
inauguration  of  Mr.  LINCOLN,  his  Secretary  of  State,  WILLIAM  H. 
SEWARD,  in  a  letter  of  instructions  to  Mr.  C.  F.  ADAMS,  United 
States  Minister  at  London,  says  :  "  For  these  reasons,  he  (Mr. 
LINCOLN)  would  not  be  disposed  to  reject  a  cardinal  doctrine  of 


292  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

theirs  (the  secessionists),  namely,  that  the  .Federal  Government 
could  not  reduce  the  seceding  States  to  obedience  by  conquest, 
even  although  he  were  disposed  to  question  that  proposition. 
But,  in  fact,  the  President  accepts  it  as  true.  Only  an  imperial 
or  despotic  government  could  subjugate  thoroughly  disaffected 
and  insurrectionary  members  of  the  State.  This  Federal  Repub 
lican  system  of  ours  is,  of  all  forms  of  government,  the  very  one 
most  unfitted  for  such  a  labor." 


SPEECH  OF  ME.  DOUGLAS  IN  THE  SENATE,  MARCH  15,  1861. 

"  I  prefer  such  an  amicable  settlement  to  peaceable  dis 
union  ;  and  I  prefer  it  a  thousand  times  to  civil  war.  If  we 
can  adopt  such  amendments  as  will  be  satisfactory  to  Yirginia, 
North  Carolina,  Tennessee,  and  the  other  border  States,  the 
plan  of  pacification  which  will  satisfy  them  will  create  a  Union 
party  in  the  cotton  States,  which  will  soon  embrace  a  large 
majority  of  the  people  in  those  States,  and  bring  them  back 
of  then*  own  free  will  and  accord  ;  and  thus  restore,  strengthen, 
and  perpetuate  this  glorious  old  Union  forever.  I  repeat,  what 
ever  guarantees  will  satisfy  Maryland  and  the  border  States 
(the  States  now  in  the  Union),  will  create  a  Union  party  in  the 
seceded  States  that  will  bring  them  back  by  the  voluntary 
action  of  their  own  people.  You  can  restore  and  preserve  the 
Government  in  that  mode.  You  can  do  it  in  no  other. 

"  War  is  disunion.  War  is  final,  eternal  separation. 
Hence,  disguise  it  as  you  may,  every  Union  man  in  America 
must  advocate  such  amendments  to  the  Constitution  as  will 
preserve  peace  and  restore  the  Union  ;  while  every  disunionist, 
whether  openly  or  secretly  plotting  its  destruction,  is  the  advo 
cate  of  peaceful  secession,  or  of  war  as  the  surest  means  of 
rendering  reunion  and  reconstruction  impossible.  I  have  too 
much  respect  for  his  intellect  to  believe,  for  one  moment,  that 
there  is  a  man  for  war  who  is  not  a  disunionist  per  se.  Hence 
I  do  not  mean,  if  I  can  prevent  it,  that  the  enemies  of  the 
Union — men  plotting  to  destroy  it — shall  drag  this  country 
into  war,  under  the  pretext  of  protecting  the  public  property 
and  enforcing  the  laws  and  collecting  revenue,  when  their 


SPEECH    OF   MR.  DOUGLAS.  293 

object  is  disunion,  and  war  the  means  of  accomplishing  a 
cherished  purpose. 

"  The  disunionists,  therefore,  are  divided  into  two  classes : 
the  one  open,  the  other  secret,  disunionists.  The  one  is  in  favor 
of  peaceful  secession  and  a  recognition  of  independence ;  the 
other  is  in  favor  of  war  as  the  surest  means  of  accomplishing 
the  object,  and  of  making  the  separation  final  and  eternal.  I 
am  a  Union  man,  and  hence  against  war ;  but  if  the  Union 
must  be  temporarily  broken  by  a  revolution,  and  the  establish 
ment  of  a  de  facto  government  by  some  of  the  States,  let  no 
act  be  done  that  will  prevent  restoration  and  future  preserva 
tion.  Peace  is  the  only  policy  that  can  lead  to  that  result. 

"  But  we  are  told,  and  we  hear  it  repeated  everywhere,  that 
we-  must  find  out  whether  we  have  got  a  government.  '  Have 
we  a  government  ? '  is  the  question  ;  and  we  are  told  we  must 
test  that  question  by  using  the  military  power  to  put  down  all 
discontented  spirits.  Sir,  this  question,  '  Have  we  a  govern 
ment  ? '  has  been  propounded  by  every  tyrant  who  has  tried 
to  keep  his  feet  on  the  necks  of  the  people  since  the  world 
began.  When  the  barons  demanded  Magna  Charta  from  King 
John  at  Kunnymede,  he  exclaimed,  '  Have  we  a  govern 
ment  ? '  and  called  for  his  army  to  put  down  the  discontented 
barons.  When  Charles  I.  attempted  to  collect  the  ship  money 
in  disregard  of  the  rights  of  the  people,  and  was  resisted  by 
them,  he  exclaimed,  l  Have  we  a  government  ?  We  cannot 
treat  with  rebels ;  put  down  the  traitors ;  we  must  show  that 
we  have  a  government.'  When  James  II.  was  driven  from  the 
throne  of  England  for  trampling  on  the  liberties  of  the  people, 
he  called  for  his  army,  and  exclaimed,  c  Let  us  show  that  we 
have  a  government.'  When  George  III.  called  upon  his  army 
to  put  down  the  rebellion  in  America,  Lord  North  cried  lustily, 
'  ~No  compromise  with  traitors ;  let  us  demonstrate  that  we 
have  a  government.'  When,  in  1848,  the  people  rose  upon 
their  tyrants  all  over  Europe,  and  demanded  guarantees  for 
their  rights,  every  crowned  head  exclaimed,  '  Have  we  a  gov 
ernment  \ '  and  appealed  to  the  army  to  vindicate  their  author 
ity  and  enforce  the  law. 

"  Sir,  the  history  of  the  world  does  not  fail  to  condemn  the 
folly,  weakness,  and  wickedness  of  that  government  which  draws 


294  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

its  sword  upon  its  own  people  when  they  demanded  guarantees 
for  their  rights.  This  cry,  that  we  must  have  a  government,  is 
merely  following  the  example  of  the  besotted  Bourbon,  who 
never  learned  anything  by  misfortune,  never  forgave  an  injury, 
never  forgot  an  affront.  Must  we  demonstrate  that  we  have 
got  a  government,  and  coerce  obedience  without  reference  to 
the  justice  or  injustice  of  the  complaint?  Sir,  whenever  ten 
million  people  proclaim  to  you,  with  one  unanimous  voice,  that 
they  apprehend  their  rights,  their  fireside,  and  their  family  altars 
are  in  danger,  it  becomes  a  wise  government  to  listen  to  the 
appeal,  and  to  remove  the  apprehension.  History  does  not 
record  an  example  where  any  human  government  has  been 
strong  enough  to  crush  ten  million  people  into  subjection  when 
they  believed  their  rights  and  liberties  were  imperilled,  without 
first  converting  the  government  itself  into  a  despotism,  and 
destroying  the  last  vestige  of  freedom." 

In  another  speech,  delivered  in  the  Senate  on  the  3d  of 
January,  1861,  he  used  the  following  language  in  reference  to 
the  CRITTENDEN  Compromise  :  "  I  believe  this  to  be  a  fair  basis 
of  amicable  adjustment.  If  you  of  the  Republican  side  are  not 
willing  to  accept  this,  nor  the  proposition  of  the  Senator  from 
Kentucky,  Mr.  CRITTENDEN,  pray  tell  us  what  you  are  willing 
to  do.  I  address  the  inquiry  to  the  Republicans  alone,  for  the 
reason  that,  in  the  Committee  of  Thirteen,  a  few  days  ago, 
every  member  from  the  South,  including  those  from  the  cotton 
States  (Messrs.  DAVIS  and  TOOMBS),  expressed  their  readiness 
to  accept  the  proposition  of  my  venerable  friend  from  Ken 
tucky,  as  a  final  settlement  of  the  controversy,  if  tendered  and 
sustained  by  the  Republican  members.  Hence,  the  sole  respon 
sibility  of  our  disagreement,  and  the  only  difficulty  in  the  way 
of  an  amicable  adjustment,  is  with  the  Republican  party." 

Why  did  we  not  have  peace  instead  of  war  ?  Because  there 
were  certain  men  who  chose  war  rather  than  peace.  They  felt 
that  the  Southern  slaveholders  "  were  sinners  above  all  others." 
Their  language  was :  "  Do  I  not  hate  them,  O  Lord,  that  hate 
Thee  ?  Yea,  I  hate  them  with  perfect  hatred."  They  talked 
about  "  a  holy  indignation,"  "  a  sacred  animosity,"  using  the 


INAUGURAL    ADDRESS   OF   JEFFERSON   DAVIS.  295 

term  "  sacred  "  in  the  sense  of  holy,  and  not  in  the  other  sense, 
accursed.  "What  they  wanted,  was  the  emancipation  of  the 
slaves  and  the  subjugation  of  the  whites.  And  afterwards, 
when  the  armies  of  the  North  held  in  their  power  the  people 
of  the  South,  as  completely  as  the  Samnites  held  the  Roman 
army  at  the  Caudine  Forks,  there  were  those  who  talked 
about  exterminating  the  whites,  and  giving  their  lands  to  the 
negroes;  and,  at  all  events,  hanging  the  traitorous  leaders. 
While,  indeed,  there  were  those  who  adopted  the  magnani 
mous  declaration,  "  The  Union  is  the  one  condition  of  peace," 
there  were  others  who  burned  with  the  desire,  that  the  people 
of  the  Southern  States  should  be  stripped,  and  pass  under  the 
yoke,  as  the  Roman  soldiers  did. 


THE    SOUTHERN    CONFEDERACY. 

On  the  8th  of  February,"  1861,  the  six  cotton  States, 
namely,  SOUTH  CAROLINA,  FLORIDA,  MISSISSIPPI,  ALABAMA, 
GEORGIA,  LOUISIANA,  and  TEXAS,  by  their  delegates  at  Mont 
gomery,  Alabama,  adopted  a  constitution  substantially  the 
same  as  the  Federal  Constitution,  but  more  explicit.  On  the 
9th  of  February  they  made  choice  of  JEFFERSON  DAVIS,  of  Mis 
sissippi,  as  President,  and  ALEXANDER  IT.  STEPHENS,  of  Georgia, 
as  Vice  President. 


INAUGURAL    ADDRESS    OF   JEFFERSON    DAVIS. 

"  Our  present  condition  (February  18,  1861),  achieved  in  a 
manner  unprecedented  in  the  history  of  nations,  illustrates  the 
Amercian  idea,  that  governments  rest  upon  the  consent  of  the 
governed,  and  that  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  alter  and 
abolish  governments  whenever  they  become  destructive  to  the 
ends  for  which  they  were  established.  The  declared  compact 
of  the  Union  from  which  we  have  withdrawn  was  to  establish 
justice,  ensure  domestic  tranquility,  provide  for  the  common 
defence,  promote  the  general  welfare,  and  secure  the  blessings 
of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity ;  and  when,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  sovereign  States  now  composing  this  Con- 
20 


296  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTKOVEKSY. 

federacy,  it  has  been  perverted  from  the  purposes  for  which 
it  was  ordained,  and  ceased  to  answer  the  ends  for  which  it 
was  established,  a  peaceful  appeal  to  the  ballot-box  declared 
that,  so  far  as  they  were  concerned,  the  government  created 
by  that  compact  should  cease  to  exist.  In  this  they  merely 
asserted  a  right  which  the  Declaration  of  Independence  of 
1776  defined  to  be  inalienable.  Of  the  time  and  the  occasion 
of  its  exercise,  they,  as  sovereigns,  were  the  final  judges,  each 
for  itself.  The  impartial,  enlightened  verdict  of  mankind  will 
vindicate  the  rectitude  of  our  conduct ;  and  He  who  knows 
the  hearts  of  men  will  judge  of  the  sincerity  with  which  we 
labored  to  preserve  the  Government  of  our  fathers  in  its 
spirit." 

"  The  right  solemnly  proclaimed  at  the  birth  of  the  States, 
and  which  has  been  affirmed  and  reaffirmed  in  the  bills  of 
rights  of  the  States  subsequently  admitted  into  the  Union  of 
1789,  undeniably  recognizes  in  ttie  people  the  power  to  resume 
the  authority  delegated  for  the  purposes  of  government." 

"  An  agricultural  people,  wrhose  chief  interest  is  the  export 
of  a  commodity  required  in  every  manufacturing  country,  our 
true  policy  is  peace,  and  the  freest  trade  which  our  necessities 
will  permit." 

"  Actuated  solely  by  a  desire  to  preserve  our  own  rights 
and  promote  our  own  welfare,  the  separation  of  the  Confed 
erate  States  has  been  marked  by  no  aggression  upon  others, 
and  followed  by  no  domestic  convulsion." 

"  We  have  changed  the  constituent  parts,  but  not  the 
system  of  our  government.  The  Constitution  formed  by  our 
fathers  is  that  of  these  Confederate  States.  In  their  exposition 
of  it,  and  in  the  judicial  construction  it  has  received,  we  have 
a  light  which  has  revealed  its  true  meaning." 

If  a  just  perception  of  mutual  interest  shall  permit  us  peace 
ably  to  pursue  our  separate  political  career,  my  most  earnest 
wish  will  have  been  fulfilled.  But  if  this  be  denied  us,  and 
the  integrity  of  our  territory  and  jurisdiction  be  assailed,  it  w^ill 
remain  with  us,  with,  a  firm  resolve,  to  appeal  to  arms,  and 
invoke  the  blessing  of  Heaven  on  a  just  cause." 

From  these  extracts  the  meaning  and  the  drift  of  the  mes 
sage  can  be  understood.  Mr.  DAVIS  takes  the  Federal  Con- 


CONSTITUTION   OF    THE   CONFEDERATE   STATES.  297 

stitution  as  his  rule  of  action  ;  claims  the  right  of  resuming  the 
rights  delegated  in  that  instrument ;  expresses  a  desire  for  a 
peaceable  separation  ;  and  declares  that  the  responsibility  of 
war,  if  there  should  be  a  war,  must  rest  on  the  assailants,  and 
not  6n  the  Confederate  States.  He  assumes  that  the  States  in 
the  Federal  Union,  under  the  Federal  Constitution,  bear  the 
same  relation  to  that  Union  and  that  Constitution  which  the 
Colonies  did  to  their  union  with  Great  Britain  and  to  the  British 
Constitution  ;  and  that  the  separation  of  the  seceded  States  from 
the  Federal  Government  was  justified  on  the  same  grounds  as 
the  separation  of  the  Colonies  from  the  British  Government. 


CONSTITUTION    OF   THE    CONFEDERATE    STATES. 

This  Constitution,  in  nearly  all  its  parts,  has  the  precise 
language  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  in  the 
order  of  arrangement  of  the  articles  and  sections  is  the  same  as 
that.  There  are,  however,  certain  points  of  difference  between 
the  two,  which  may  be  clearly  seen  from  the  following  state 
ment,  from  "  McPHERSON's  History  :  " 

The  preamble  is  changed  in  the  following  respects :  The 
words,  "  United  States"  near  the  beginning,  are  stricken  out, 
and  the  following  words  inserted  in  their  place :  "  Confederate 
States,  each  State  acting  in  its  sovereign  and  independent  char 
acter."  Also,  the  words,  "  more  perfect  union"  are  stricken 
out,  and  the  words,  "permanent  federal  government"  inserted 
in  their  place.  Also,  the  following  words  are  omitted  :  "  Pro 
vide  for  the  common  defence,  promote  the  general  welfare" 
Also,  after  the  word  "posterity"  the  following  words  are 
inserted :  "  invoicing  the  favor  and  guidance  of  Almighty 
God"  Also,  the  word  "  Confederate "  takes  the  place  of 
"  United"  preceding  the  word  "States"  This  last  change 
takes  place  throughout  the  entire  instrument,  with  a  single 
exception,  which  will  be  noted  in  the  appropriate  place. 

ARTICLE  I. 
SEC.  1. — The   word   "granted"   is    stricken   out,   and  the 


298  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTKOVEKSY. 

word  "  delegated "  inserted  in  its  place.  Also,  the  word 
"  United "  preceding  the  word  "  States  "  is  stricken  out,  and 
the  word  "  Confederated  "  inserted  in  its  place. 

SEC.  2. — This  section  is  changed  as  follows :  In  the  first 
paragraph,  after  the  words,  "  in  each  State  shall"  the  follow 
ing  words  are  inserted :  "  ~be  citizens  of  the  Confederate  States, 
and"  Also,  the  following  words  are  added  to  tin's  paragraph  : 
"  but  no  person  of  foreign  birth,  and  not  a  citizen  of  the  Con 
federate  States,  shall  be  allowed  to  vote  for  any  officer,  civil  or 
political,  State  or  Federal." 

In  the  second  paragraph,  the  words,  "  been  seven  years  a 
citizen  of  the  United"  are  stricken  out,  and  the  words,  "  be  a 
citizen  of  the  Confederate"  inserted  in  place  of  them. 

In  the  third  paragraph,  the  word  "  Union  "  is  stricken  out, 
and  the  word  "  Confederacy  "  substituted.  Also  the  words, 
"  other  persons"  are  stricken  out  and  the  word  "  slaves  "  sub 
stituted.  Also  the  word  "  thirty"  preceding  the  word  "  thou 
sand"  is  stricken  out,  and  the  word  "fifty  "  substituted.  Also, 
all  the  words  in  this  paragraph  after  the  words,  "  the  State  of" 
are  stricken  out,  and  the  following  words  substituted :  "  South 
Carolina  shall  le  entitled  to  choose  six,  the  State  of  Georgia 
ten,  the  State  of  Alabama  nine,  the  State  of  Florida  two,  the 
State  of  Mississippi  seven,  the  State  of  Louisiana  six,  and  the 
State  of  Texas  six." 

No  change  is  made  in  the  fourth  paragraph  ;  and  the  fifth 
paragraph  is  changed  by  adding  the  following  words :  "  except 
that  any  judicial  or  other  federal  officer,  resident,  and  acting 
solely  within  the  limits  of  any  State,  may  be  impeached  by  a 
vote  of  two  thirds  of  both  branches  of  the  Legislature  thereof" 

SEC.  3. — In  the  first  paragraph  after  the  the  words,  "  thereof 
for  six  years"  the  words,  "  at  the  regular  session  next  imme 
diately  preceding  the  commencement  of  the  term  of  service"  are 
inserted. 

No  change  is  made  in  the  second  paragraph.  In  the  third 
paragraph,  the  words,  "  been  nine  years  a  citizen  of  the  United" 
are  stricken  out,  and  the  words,  "  be  a  citizen  of  the  Confede 
rate"  substituted. 

SEC.  4. — The  first  paragraph  of  this  section  is  changed  by 
inserting  the  words,  "  subject  to  the  provisions  of  this  Condi- 


CONSTITUTION    OF   THE    CONFEDERATE    STATES.  299 

tution"  between  the  word  "thereof"  and  the  word  "  'but" 
Also,  the  words,  u  times  and"  are  inserted  near  the  close, 
before  the  word  "places." 

SEC.  5. — In  the  second  paragraph  of  this  section,  the  words, 
"  of  the  whole  number"  are  inserted  between  the  word  "  two 
thirds  "  and  the  word  "-expel" 

SEC.  6. — This  section  is  changed  by  striking  out  the  word 
"felony  "  after  the  word  "  treason"  in  the  first  paragraph. 

The  second  paragraph  is  changed  by  adding  thereto  the 
following  words :  "  But  Congress  may  by  law  grant  to  the 
principal  officer  in  each  of  the  executive  departments  a  seat 
upon  the  floor  of  either  House,  with  the  privilege  of  discuss 
ing  any  measures  appertaining  to  his  department" 

SEC.  7. — The  following  changes  are  made  in  this  section  : 
In  the  second  paragraph  the  words,  "  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  and  the  Senate"  are  stricken  out,  and  the  words 
"  both  Houses "  substituted.  Also  the  word  "  such "  is 
inserted  between  the  word  "  all "  and  the  word  "  cases" 
Also  the  following  words  are  added  to  the  end  of  this  para 
graph  :  "  The  President  may  approve  any  appropriation  and 
disapprove  any  other  appropriation  in  the  same  bill.  In  such 
case  he  shall,  in  signing  the  bill,  designate  the  appropriations 
disapproved,  and  shall  return  a  copy  of  such  appropriations, 
with  his  objections,  to  the  House  in  which  the  bill  shall  have 
originated ;  and  the  same  proceedings  shall  then  be  had  as  in 
case  of  other  bills  disapproved  by  the  President" 

The  third  paragraph  is  changed  by  striking  out  the  words, 
"  The  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives"  in  both  places 
where  they  occur,  and  inserting  in  their  places,  in  both  cases, 
the  words,  "  both  Houses"  Also  by  substituting  the  word 
"  may  "  for  the  word  "  shall"  after  the  words,  "  disapproved 
by  him" 

SEC.  8. — In  the  first  paragraph,  after  the  word  "  excises" 
the  words,  "for  revenue  necessary"  are  inserted.  Also  the 
word  "  and  "  after  the  word  "  debts  "  is  omitted.  Also  the 
words,  "and  general  welfare  of  the  United  States ;  but,"  are 
stricken  out,  and  the  following  words  substituted  :  "  and  carry 
on  the  government  of  the  Confederate  States  ;  but  no  bounties 
shall  be  granted  from  the  Treasury,  nor  shall  any  duties  or 


300  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

taxes  on  importations  from  foreign  nations  be  laid  to  promote 
or  foster  any  'branch  of  industry  ;  and" 

The  third  paragraph  is  changed  by  adding  thereto  the 
following  words :  "  but  neither  this,  nor  any  other  clause  con 
tained  in  the  Constitution,  shall  ever  be  construed  to  delegate 
the  power  to  Congress  to  appropriate  money  for  any  internal 
improvement  intended  to  facilitate  commerce  ;  except  for  the 
purpose  of  furnishing  lights,  beacons,  and  buoys,  and  other 
aids  to  navigation  upon  the  coasts,  and  the  improvement  of 
harbors,  and  the  removing  of  obstructions  in  river  navigation  / 
in  all  such  cases  such  duties  shall  be  laid  on  the  navigation 
facilitated  thereby,  as  may  be  necessary  to  pay  the  costs  and 
expenses  thereof." 

The  fourth  paragraph  is  changed  by  adding  thereto  the 
following  words  :  "  but  no  law  of  Congress  shall  discharge  any 
debt  contracted  before  the  passage  of  the  same" 

The  seventh  paragraph  is  changed  as  follows :  The  last 
word  "  roads "  is  changed  to  "  routes,"  and  the  following 
words  added  thereto :  "  but  the  Post-office  Department,  after 
the  first  day  of  March,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  eighteen 
hundred  and  sixty-three,  shall  be  paid  out  of  its  own  reve 
nues" 

In  the  fifteenth  paragraph,  the  word  u  Union  "  is  stricken 
out,  and  the  words,  "  the  Confederate  States,"  substituted. 

SEC.  9. — The  whole  of  the  first  paragraph  is  stricken  out, 
and  the  following  words  substituted  therefor :  "  The  impor 
tation  of  negroes  of  the  African  race. from, any  foreign  coun 
try  other  than  the  slaveholding  States  or  Territories  of  the 
United  States  of  America  is  hereby  forbidden ;  and  Congress 
is  required  to  pass  such  laws  as  shall  effectually  prevent  the 
same.  Congress  shall  also  have  power  to  prohibit  the  intro 
duction  of  slaves  from  any  State  not  a  member  of,  or  territory 
not  belonging  to  this  Confederacy" 

In  the  third  paragraph,  after  the  word  "  law"  the  words, 
"  or  law  denying  or  impairing  the  right  of  property  in  negro 
slaves,"  are  inserted. 

The  fifth  paragraph  is  changed  by  adding  thereto  the 
following  words :  "  except  by  a  vote  of  two  thirds  of  both 
Houses" 


CONSTITUTION   OF   THE   CONFEDERATE   STATES.  301 

The  sixth  paragraph  is  changed  by  the  omission  of  all  after 
the  word  "  another" 

The  following  clauses  are  inserted  after  the  seventh  para 
graph  :  "  Congress  shall  appropriate  no  money  from  the  Treas 
ury  except  by  a  vote  of  two  thirds  of  both  Houses,  taken  ~by 
yeas  and  nays,  unless  it  he  asked  and  estimated  for  hy  some 
one  of  the  heads  of  departments ',  and  submitted  to  Congress  hy 
the  President ;  or  for  the  purpose  of  paying  its  own  expenses 
and  contingencies  ;  or  for  the  payment  of  claims  against  the 
Confederate  States,  the  justice  of  which  shall  have  been  judi 
cially  declared  by  a  tribunal  for  the  investigation  of  claims 
against  the  Government,  which  is  hereby  made  the  duty  of 
Congress  to  establish." 

"  All  bills  appropriating  money  shall  specify  in  Federal 
currency  the  exact  amount  of  each  appropriation,  and  the 
purposes  for  which  it  is  made  ;  and  Congress  shall  grant  no 
extra  compensation  to  any  public .  contractor,  officer,  agent,  or 
servant,  after  such  contract  shall  have  been  made  or  such  service 
rendered" 

This  section  is  further  changed  by  adding  to  it  the  first 
eight  Amendments  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
followed  by  this  paragraph :  "  Every  law  or  resolution  having 
the  force  of  law  shall  relate  to  but  one  subject,  and  that  shall 
be  expressed  in  the  title" 

SEC.  10. — The  first  paragraph  is  changed  by  striking  out 
the  following  words :  "  emit "  "  bills  of  credit"  Also,  by 
inserting  the  word  "  or  "  between  the  word  "  attainder  "  and 
the  words  "  ex  post  facto" 

The  third  paragraph  is  changed  by  inserting,  after  the  word 
"  tonnage  "  the  following  words :  "  except  on  sea-going  vessels, 
for  the  improvement  of  its  rivers  and  harbors  navigated  by 
the  said  vessels  /  but  such  duties  shall  not  conflict  with  any 
treaties  of  the  Confederate  States  with  foreign  nations ;  and 
any  surplus  of  revenue  thus  derived  shall,  after  making  such 
improvement,  be  paid  into  the  common  Treasury  /  nor  shall 
any  State."  Also  the  following  clause  is  added  to  this  para 
graph  :  "  But  when  any  river  divides  or  flows  through  two  or 
more  States,  they  may  enter  into  compacts  with  each  other  to 
improve  the  navigation  thereof" 


302  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

ARTICLE  II. 

SEC.  1. — The  first  paragraph  is  so  altered  as  to  read  as 
follows :  "  The  executive  power  shall  ~be  vested  in  a  President 
of  the  Confederate  States  of  America.  He  and  the  Vice- 
President  shall  hold  their  offices  for  the  term  of  six  years ; 
but  the  President  shall  not  be  re'eligible.  The  President  and 
Vice- President  shall  be  elected  as  follows  :  " 

The  third  paragraph  is  stricken  out,  and  the  twelfth  article 
of  the  Amendments  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
substituted. 

The  fifth  paragraph  is  changed  in  the  following  respects : 
the  words,  "  or  a  citizen  of  the  United  States"  are  stricken 
out,  and  the  words,  "  of  the  Confederate  States,  or  a  citizen 
thereof"  substituted.  Also,  after  the  word  "  Constitution'"  the 
following  words  are  inserted  :  "  or  a  citizen  thereof  lorn  in  the 
United  States,  prior  to  the  %Qth  of  December,  1860."  Also 
the  words,  "  United  States"  at  the  close  of  the  paragraph, 
are  stricken  out,  and  the  words,  "  limits  of  the  Confederate 
States,  as  they  may  exist  at  the  time  of  his  election"  are 
substituted. 

The  eighth  paragraph  is  changed  by  substituting  the  word 
"  enters  "  for  the  word  u  enter" 

The  last  paragraph  is  changed  by  striking  out  the  words, 
"  of  the  United  States,"  at  the  close,  and  substituting  the  word 
"  thereof." 

SEC.  2. — The  second  paragraph  is  changed  by  adding 
thereto  the  words  following :  "  The  principal  officer  in  each 
of  the  executive  departments,  and  all  persons  connected  with 
the  diplomatic  service,  may  be  removed  from  office  at  the 
pleasure  of  the  President.  All  other  civil  officers  of  the 
executive  department  may  be  removed  at  any  time  by  the 
President,  or  other  appointing  power,  when  their  services  are 
unnecessary,  or  for  dishonesty,  incapacity,  inefficiency,  mis 
conduct,  or  neglect  of  duty  /  and  when  so  removed,  the 
removal  shall  be  reported  to  the  Senate,  together  with  the 
reasons  therefor" 

The  third  paragraph  is  changed  by  dropping  the  word 
"  up  "  after  the  word  "fill." 


CONSTITUTION,  OF    THE    CONFEDERATE    STATES.  303 

SEC.  3. — This  section  is  changed  in  the  following  respects : 
The  first  word,  "  He"  is  stricken  out,  and  the  words,  "  The 
President"  substituted.  Also  the  word  "  Union  "  is  stricken 
out,  and  the  word  "  Confederacy  "  substituted. 

ARTICLE  III. 

SEC.  1. — In  this  section,  the  word  "  Supreme  "  is  stricken 
out,  and  the  word  "Superior"  substituted,  in  the  first  sentence 
of  the  first  paragraph. 

SEC.  2. — This  section  is  changed  as  follows :  After  the 
clause,  "  citizens  of  another  State"  the  following  clause  is 
inserted  :  "  where  the  State  is  plaintiff"  Also,  the  next  sim 
ple  sentence  is  changed  by  inserting  the  words,  "  claiming 
lands  under  grants"  between  the  word  "  citizens "  and  the 
word  "  of"  Also  the  following  clause  is  stricken  out :  "  be 
tween  citizens  of  the  same  State  claiming  lands  under  grants 
of  different  States"  Also  the  following  clause  is  added  to  the 
first  paragraph :  "  ~but  no  State  shall  he  sued  by  a  citizen  or 
subject  of  any  foreign  State"  Also,  in  the  first  part  of  this 
paragraph,  the  following  clauses,  "  in  law  and  equity"  and 
"  arising  under  this  Constitution"  are  transposed. 

In  the  third  paragraph,  in  the  clause,  "  where  the  said 
crimes  shall  have  been  committed"  the  word  "  crimes "  is 
changed  to  the  word  "  crime" 

ARTICLE  IV. 

SEC.  1. — No  change. 

SEC.  2. — The  first  paragraph  is  changed  by  adding  thereto 
the  following  clauses :  "  and  shall  have  the  right  of  transit 
and  sojourn  in  any  State  of  this  Confederacy,  with  their 
slaves  and  other  property  /  and  the  right  of  property  in  such 
slaves  shall  not  he  thereby  impaired" 

The  third  paragraph  is  changed  in  the  following  respects : 
After  the  first  word  "  JVo"  the  words,  "slave  or"  are  inserted. 
Also,  the  words,  "  one  /State"  are  stricken  out,  and  the  words, 
"  any  State  or  Territory  of  the  Confederate  States"  are  sub 
stituted.  Also,  after  the  word  "  escaping"  the  words,  "  or 
lawfully  carried  into,"  are  inserted.  Also,  the  words,  "  slave 


304  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

belongs,  or  to  whom  such"  are  inserted  between  the  word 
"  such  "  and  the  word  "  service"  near  the  close  of  the  para 
graph. 

SEC.  3. — The  first  paragraph  is  changed  by  striking  out  all 
the  words  to  and  including  the  -word  "  Union"  and  substituting 

O  *  O 

the  words,  "  Other  States  'may  1)6  admitted  into  this  Confed 
eracy  by  a  vote  of  two  thirds  of  the  whole  House  of  Represen 
tatives ',  and  two  thirds  of  the  Senate,  the  Senate  voting  ~by 
States." 

The  second  paragraph  is  changed  by  striking  out  all  after 
the  word  "  regulations"  and  inserting  the  following  clauses : 
"  concerning  the  property  of  the  Confederate  States,  including 
the  lands  thereof. 

"  The  Confederate  States  may  acquire  new  territory ,  and 
Congress  shall  have  power  to  legislate  and  provide  governments 
for  the  inhabitants  of  all  territory  belonging  to  the  Confederate 
States  lying  without  the  limits  of  the  several  States,  and  may 
permit  them,  at  such  times  and  in  such  manner  as  it  may  by 
law  provide,  to  form  States  to  he  admitted  into  the  Confederacy. 
In  all  such  territory  the  institution  of  negro  slavery  as  it  now 
exists  in  the  Confederate  States,  shall  he  recognized  and  pro 
tected  by  Congress  and  by  the  Territorial  government,  and  the 
inhabitants  of  the  several  Confederate  States  and  Territories 
shall  have  the  right  to  take  to  such  territory  any  slaves  lawfully 
held  by  them  in  any  of  the  States  or  Territories  of  the  Confed 
erate  States." 

SEC.  4. — This  section  is  changed  as  follows :  The  words, 
"  in  this  Union,"  are  stricken  out,  and  the  words,  "  that  now 
is,  or  hereafter  may  become,  a  member  of  this  Confederacy" 
inserted.  Also,  after  the  word  "  Legislature"  the  words 
u  cannot  be  convened "  are  dropped,  and  the  words,  "  is  not 
in  session"  substituted.  Also  this  entire  section  is  omitted,  as 
a  section,  and  placed  at  the  end  of  section  3,  as  a  paragraph 
thereof. 

ARTICLE  Y. 

This  article  is  stricken  out  entirely,  and  the  following  sub 
stituted  :  "  Upon  the  demand  of  any  three  States,  legally 
assembled  in  their  several  conventions,  the  Congress  shall  sum- 


CONSTITUTION    OF   THE    CONFEDEEATE    STATES.  305 

mon  a  convention  of  all  the  States,  to  take  into  consideration 
such  amendments  to  the  Constitution  as  the  said  States  shall 
concur  in  suggesting  at  the  time  when  the  said  demand  is 
made ;  and  should  any  of  the  proposed  amendments  to  the 
Constitution  be  agreed  on  by  said  convention — voting  by  States, 
and  the  same  be  ratified  by  the  Legislatures  of  two  thirds  of 
the  several  States,  or  by  conventions'  in  two  thirds  thereof,  as 
the  one  or  the  other  mode  of  ratification  may  be  proposed  by 
the  general  convention — they  shall  henceforward  form  a  part 
of  this  Constitution.  J3ut  no  /State  shall,  without  its  consent, 
be  deprived  of  its  equal  representation  in  the  Senate" 

ARTICLE  YI. 

This  article  is  preceded  by  the  following  paragraph  :  "  The 
Government  established  by  this  Constitution  is  the  successor 
(f  the  Provisional  Government  of  the  Confederate  States  of 
America,  and  all  laws  passed  by  the  latter  shall  continue  in 
force  until  the  same  shall  be  repealed  or  modified  ;  and  all 
the  officers  appointed  by  the  same  shall  remain  in  office  until 
their  successors  are  appointed  and  qualified  or  the  offices 
abolished" 

The  first  paragraph  is  changed  by  striking  out  the  word 
"  Confederation"  and  substituting  the  words,  "  Provisional 
Government" 

In  the  second  paragraph,  the  words,  "  which  shall  be," 
following  the  word  "  States,"  are  stricken  out. 

This  article  is  also  changed  by  adding  thereto  the  9th  and 
10th  articles  of  the  Amendments  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  as  two  additional  paragraphs,  after  adding  to 
the  9th  article  the  words,  "  of  the  several  States" 

AETICLE  VII. 

The  first  paragraph  is  changed  by  substituting  the  word 
"five"  for  the  word  "nine"  preceding  the  word  "States" 

Also,  the  following  paragraph  is  added  to  the  foregoing,  as 
amended : 

"  When  five  States  shall  ratify  this  Constitution,  in  the 
manner  before  specified,  the  Congress  under  the  Provisional 
Constitution  shall  prescribe  the  time  for  holding  the  election 


306  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

of  President  and  Vice- President ;  and  for  the  meeting  of 
the  electoral  college ;  and  for  counting  the  votes  and  inaugu 
rating  the  President.  They  shall  also  prescribe  the  time  for 
holding  the  first  election  of  members  of  Congress  under  this 
Constitution,  and  the  time  for  assembling  the  same.  Until 
the  assembling  of  such  Congress,  the  Congress  under  the  Pro 
visional  Constitution  shall  continue  to  exercise  the  legislative 
powers  granted  them,  not  extending  beyond  the  time  limited 
by  the  Constitution  of  the  Provisional  Government" 

The  final  paragraph :  "  Done  in  convention  by  the  unani 
mous  consent"  &c.,  is  omitted,  and  the  words  following  sub 
stituted  :  "  Adopted  unanimously,  March  11,  1861." 


In  his  Inaugural  Message,  Mr.  LINCOLN  says :  "  Apprehen 
sion  seems  to  exist  among  the  people  of  the  Southern  States, 
that,  by  the  accession  of  the  Republican  Administration,  their 
property,  and  their  peace,  and  personal  security  are  endangered. 
There  has  never  been  any  reasonable  cause  for  such  apprehen 
sion.  Indeed,  the  most  ample  evidence  to  the  contrary  has  all 
the  while  existed,  and  been  open  to  their  inspection.  It  is 
found  in  nearly  all  the  published  speeches  of  him  who  now 
addresses  you.  I  do  but  quote  from  one  of  those  speeches, 
when  I  declare,  i  I  have  no  purpose,  directly  or  indirectly,  to 
interfere  with  the  institution  of  slavery  in  the  States  where  it- 
exists.  I  believe  I  have  no  lawful  right  to  do  so  ;  and  I  have 
no  inclination  to  do  so.'  Those  who  nominated  and  elected 
me,  did  so  with  the  full  knowledge  that  I  had  made  this,  and 
made  many  other  similar  declarations,  and  had  never  recanted 
them.  And  more  than  this — they  placed  in  the  platform,  for 
my  acceptance  and  as  a  law  to  themselves  and  to  me,  the  clear 
and  emphatic  resolution,  which  I  now  read  : 

"  i  Resolved,  That  the  maintenance  inviolate  of  the  rights 
of  the  States,  and  especially  of  the  right  of  each  State  to 
order  and  control  its  domestic  institutions  according  to  its 
own  judgment,  exclusively,  is  essential  to  that  balance  of 
power  on  which  the  perfection  and  endurance  of  our  political 


PRESIDENT    LINCOLN'S    DECLAEATIONS    ON    THE    CKISIS.          307 

fabric  depends ;  and  we  denounce  the  lawless  invasion  by 
armed  force  of  the  soil  of  any  State  or  Territory,  no  matter 
under  what  pretext,  as  among  the  gravest  of  crimes.' ' 

This,  from  the  first  part  of  his  Message,  promises  well ;  but 
did  he  prove  the  sincerity  of  his  declarations  in  his  practice  ? 
We  shall  see.  It  should  be  observed  that  he  does  not  quote 
the  anti-slavery  portion  of  the  platform,  which  afforded  ground 
for  alarm. 

He  quotes,  moreover,  the  clause  in  the  Constitution  for  the 
restoration  to  their  masters  of  fugitive  slaves,  as  of  binding 
obligation ;  but  as  to  the  laws  enacted  for  performing  that 
obligation,  his  declarations  are  loose,  suggesting  that,  if  the 
fugitive  slave  laws  of  1793  and  of  1850  were  insufficient, 
another  law  should  be  passed.  He  does  not  state  that  the 
real  difficulty  in  the  case  was,  not  in  those  laws,  but  in  the 
opposition  of  the  North  to  the  execution  of  any  law  that  would 
le  effectual  in  carrying  out  that  provision  of  the  Constitution  ; 
an  opposition  stimulated  by  himself  and  others  of  his  party. 

It  will  be  observed  that  he,  in  the  language  of  the  platform, 
"  denounces  the  invasion  of  any  State  as  among  the  gravest 
of  crimes." 

And,  as  if  conscious  from  his  past  history  that  he  was 
exposing  himself  to  the  charge  of  insincerity,  he  adds  :  "  I 
take  the  official  oaths  to-day  with  no  mental  reservation." 

He  further  says :  "  The  power  confided  to  me  will  be  used 
to  hold,  occupy,  and  possess  the  property  and  places  belonging 
to  the  Government,  and  collect  the  duties  and  imports ;  but 
beyond  these  objects  there  will  be  no  invasion,  no  using  force 
against  or  among  the  people  anywhere"  Was  the  truthfulness 
of  this  declaration  confirmed  or  invalidated  by  his  subsequent 
acts? 

He  also  makes  some  remarks  designed  to  impair  the 
binding  force  of  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States ;  professing  not  to  make  "  any  assault  on  the 
Court  and  the  judges,"  while  he  was  actually  making  it.  This 
assault  may  be  construed  into  an  attack  on  the  decision  of  that 
Court  in  the  case  of  DEED  SCOTT,  which  stood  in  the  way  of 
the  Kepublican  party  ;  and  likewise  on  the  platform  of  the 
DOUGLAS  party,  who  had  declared  that  they  would  "  abide 


308  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  on  questions  of  consti 
tutional  law." 

"  If  by  the  mere  force  of  numbers,"  he  remarks,  "  a 
majority  should  deprive  a  minority  of  any  clearly  written 
constitutional  right,  it  might,  in  a  moral  point  of  view,  justify 
revolution  ;  it  certainly  would,  if  the  right  were  a  vital  one. 
But  such  is  not  our  case."  The  people  of  the  Southern  States 
could  say,  in  reply,  that  the  right  to  recover  from  the  Northern 
States  their  fugitive  slaves,  which  was,  practically  and  by 
legislative  enactments,  denied  by  the  latter,  was  a  "  vital 
one  " — so  vital  that,  without  it,  the  Constitution  would  never 
have  been  adopted. 

He  also  says :  "  Suppose  you  go  to  war :  you  cannot  fight 
always  ;  and  when,  after  much  loss  on  both  sides  and  no  gain 
on  either,  you  cease  fighting,  the  identical  questions  as  to  terms 
of  intercourse  are  upon  you."  This  involves  a  true  doctrine. 
"War  does  not  change  the  original  terms  of  compact ;  force  can 
not  alter  opinions,  or  change  wrong  to  right. 

It  is  a  little  remarkable  that,  while  Mr.  LINCOLN  gives 
great  prominence  to  the  oath  taken  by  him  "to  preserve, 
protect,  and  defend  the  Constitution,"  he  should  speak  of  the 
"  American  people "  as  "  his  rightful  masters,"  when  that 
people  never  act  together  directly,  but  only  by  agents 
(electors)  appointed  by  the  States ;  and  that  a  great  majority, 
acting  through  their  agents,  were  opposed  to  him. 


Mr.  LINCOLN  at  this  time  probably  wished  for  peace,  if  he 
could  have  it  without  weakening  the  Republican  party  by 
giving  up  some  of  their  dogmas.  But  rather  than  do  this, 
urged  on  by  his  party,  he  preferred  war. 

Just  after  this  Message  'was  delivered,  Mr.  DOUGLAS,  in 
the  Senate,  declared  that  it  meant  peace.  Mr.  BRECKENKIDGE, 
on  the  other  hand,  declared  that  it  meant  war.  These  two 
different  opinions  were  entertained  of  it  through  the  country. 
Mr.  GUTHRIE  said  of  it :  "It  spoke  like  a  serpent  with  a  forked 
tongue."  Mr.  LINCOLN  failed  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  the 
occasion. 


309 

Had  he,  like  a  broad-minded  statesman,  recommended  in 
substance  the  adoption  of  the  CKETTENDEN  plan  of  settlement, 
he  would  have  carried  the  great  majority  of  the  country  with 
him,  both  North  and  South.  But  by  his  temporizing,  double, 
or  at  least  doubtful  course,  he  lost  the  confidence  of  the  border 
States,  and  prepared  his  Northern  supporters  to  "  cry  havoc, 
and  let  slip  the  dogs  of  war."  Had  he  done  what  General 
JACKSON  did  in  the  time  of  Nullification,  when  he  recom 
mended  the  repeal  of  the  offensive  Tariff  laws  /  had  he  done 
what  Mr.  CLAY  did  on  the  same  occasion,  when  he  surren 
dered,  to  a  large  extent,  his  favorite  American  system  ;  had  he 
done  what  Mr.  WEBSTER  did,  when  he  declared,  on  the  Tth  of 
March,  1850,  that  he  spoke  "  not  as  a  Northern  man  or  a 
Southern  man,  but  as  an  American,"  he  might  have  taken 
his  place  with  them  as  a  patriot  and  a  large-hearted  man, 
however  inferior  to  them  in  talents  and  in  statesmanship.  He 
might  have  saved  the  country  from  the  unutterable  woes  of 
the  late  war. 

The  present  writer  was  at  Willard's  Hotel,  in  Washington, 
just  after  Mr.  LINCOLN'S  arrival  there,  and  just  before  the 
rising  of  the  Peace  Convention,  which  held  its  sessions  in  the 
same  house.  He  enjoyed  the  privilege  of  being  introduced  to 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  LINCOLN,  and  of  conversing  with  several  mem 
bers  of  the  Peace  Convention  during  the  intervals  of  their  daily 
sessions.  The  multitude  of  office-seekers  generally  seemed  to 
have  implicit  faith  that  Mr.  LINCOLN,  by  his  his  good  sense  and 
humor,  would  throw  oil  on  the  troubled  waters,  which  were 
tossing  their  billows  over  the  wide  sea,  and,  like  another  Nep 
tune,  that  he  would  rise,  with  his  serene  countenance,  and  speak 
the  words  that  would  scatter  the  clouds  and  bring  back  the 
sun  ;  or,  like  another  Jesus,  the  Saviour,  that  he  would  say, 
"  Peace,  be  still,"  and  there  would  be  "  a  great  calm.5'  They 
had  apotheosized  him,  and  now  they  expected  from  him  the 
works  of  a  God. 

The  fact,  moreover,  that  a  Peace  Congress  was  in  session 
in  Washington  inspired  the  belief  or  hope  in  the  masses  that 
peace  would  in  some  way  be  preserved  ;  that  the  South,  or  the 
North,  would  give  up  its  pretensions,  or  that  some  compromise 
would  be  made. 


310  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

On  my  way  to  Connecticut,  I  took  tea,  in  New  York,  at 
the  house  of  a  Republican  friend,  where  I  met  with  an  active 
Republican  member  of  the  Peace  Convention.  He  expressed 
the  fullest  convictions  that  there  would  be  no  war ;  because, 
as  he  very  fluently  and  distinctly  stated,  the  chief  ground  of 
complaint  on  the  part  of  the  South  was,  that  "  their  slave- 
property  was  not  protected  in  the  Territories."  "  Now,"  said 
he,  earnestly,  "  they  cannot  be  so  foolish  and  so  mad  as  to  rush 
into  all  the  horrors  of  war  for  so  small  an  object  as  that."  I 
then  said  to  him  :  "  If  the  object  is  so  small*  why  not  give  it 
up  to  them  ?  "  He  was  taken  aback  for  the  moment,  but  then 
replied  :  "  Why,  it  would  destroy  the  Republican  party." 

In  Connecticut,  I  met  with  a  leading  and  able  divine,  a 
distinguished  Doctor  of  Divinity,  who  said  to  me :  "  If  the 
Southern  States  are  determined  to  go  out  of  the  Union,  it  is 
better  to  let  them  go,  and  not  have  a  war  to  keep  them  in." 

The  general  sentiment  in  Connecticut  was  against  a  war 
with  the  Southern  States.  And  from  the  city  of  Boston,  a 
petition  containing  the  names  of  22,000  citizens  was  presented 
to  Congress,  in  favor  of  the  compromise  measures. 

Congress,  with  a  full  knowledge  of  the  facts,  though  their 
attention  was  repeatedly  called  to  them  by  President  BUCHANAN, 
made  no  provision  for  the  existing  state  of  things,  and  refused 
to  grant  either  men  or  money  for  carrying  on  war  with  the 
seceded  States. 

Still  there  were  those  in  Congress,  and  elsewhere,  who 
thirsted  for  blood,  and  who  felt  that  Mr.  LINCOLN  ought  to  be 
punisher  of  the  Southern  States,  performing  the  duties  of  the 
fabled  NEMESIS,  the  daughter  of  Jupiter,  and  Necessitas.  They 
thought  that  he  ought  to  arm  himself  with  the  thunder-bolts 
forged  by  the  party  that  elected  him,  and,  under  the  plea  of 
necessity,  send  them  from  his  red  right  hand  upon  the  guilty 
people  of  the  South. 

While  he  was  gradually  yielding  to  these  malign  influences, 
we  can  easily  believe,  to  use  his  poetic  language  in  his  Mes 
sage,  that  his  u  mystic  cords  of  memory  "  sometimes,  u  touched 
by  the  better  angels  of  our  nature,"  put  to  flight  the  demon  of 
war  from  his  soul ;  as  the  evil  spirit  was  driven,  by  the  harp  of 
David,  from  Saul,  only  to  return. 


DIPLOMACY.  311 


DIPLOMACY.       SOUTH    CAROLINA   AND    PRESIDENT   BUCHANAN. 

As  mentioned,  page  228,  the  commissioners  appointed  by 
South  Carolina  came  to  Washington.  On  the  29th  of  Decem 
ber,  1860,  they  addressed  a  letter  to  President  BUCHANAN  : 

u  SIR  :  We  have  the  honor  to  transmit  to  you  a  copy  of  the 
full  powers  from  the  convention  of  the  people  of  South  Carolina, 
under  which  we  are  authorized  to  treat  with  *  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  for  the  delivery  of  the  forts,  magazines, 
light-houses,  and  other  real  estate,  with  their  appurtenances, 
in  the  limits  of  South  Carolina ;  and  also  for  an  apportion 
ment  of  the  public  debt,  and  for  a  division  of  all  other  property 
held  by  the  Confederated  States  of  which  South  Carolina  was 
recently  a  member ;  and  generally  to  negotiate  as  to  all  other 
measures  and  arrangements  proper  to  be  made  and  adopted, 
in  the  existing  relations  of  the  parties,  and  for  the  continuance 
of  peace  and  amity  between  this  commonwealth  and  the  Gov 
ernment  at  Washington."  They  also  say  :  "  But  events  of  the 
last  twenty -four  hours,  render  this  assurance  impossible."  These 
"  events  "  were  the  removal  of  the  troops  from  Tort  Moultrie 
to  Fort  Sumter. 

At  the  close  of  the  letter  they  say :  "  And  in  conclusion, 
we  would  urge  upon  you  the  withdrawal  of  the  troops  from 
the  harbor  of  Charleston.  Under  present  circumstances,  they 
are  a  standing  menace,  which  renders  negotiations  impossible, 
and,  as  our  recent  experience  shows,  threatens  speedily  to 
bring  to  a  bloody  issue,  questions  which  ought  to  be  settled 
with  temperance  and  judgment.  We  have  the  honor  to  be, 
very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servants,  R.  W.  BAENWELL, 
J.  II.  ADAMS,  JAMBS  L.  OER." 

In  his  answer  to  this  communication,  the  President  said : 
"  I  have  to  say,  that  my  position  as  President  of  the  United 
States  was  clearly  defined  in  the  Message  to  Congress,  on  the 
3d  instant.  In  that,  I  stated  that,  '  apart  from  the  execution 
of  the  laws,  so  far  as  this  may  be  practicable,  the  Executive 
has  no  authority  to  decide  what  shall  be  the  relations  between 
the  Federal  Government  and  South  Carolina.  He  possesses 
21 


312  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

no  power  to  change  the  relations  hitherto  existing  between 
them,  much  less  to  acknowledge  the  independence  of  that 
State.  ...  It  is,  therefore,  my  duty  to  submit  to  Congress 
the  whole  question  in  all  its  bearings.' 

"  Such  is  my  opinion  still.  I  could,  therefore,  meet  you 
only  as  private  gentlemen,  of  the  highest  character,  and  was 
entirely  willing  to  communicate  to  Congress  any  proposition 
you  have  to  make  to  that  body  upon  the  subject.  Of  this 
you  are  well  aware.  It  was  my  earnest  desire  that  such  a 
disposition  should  be  made  of  the  whole  subject,  by  Congress, 
who  alone  possess  the  power,  as  to  prevent  the  inauguration 
of  a  civil  war  between  the  parties  in  regard  to  the  possession 
of  the  Federal  forts  in  the  harbor  of  Charleston. 

u  In  conclusion,  you  urge  upon  me  '  the  immediate  with 
drawal  of  the  troops  from  the  harbor  of  Charleston,'  stating 
that,  '  under  present  circumstances,  they  are  a  standing 
menace.' ' 

In  order  to  understand  what  is  meant,  by  "  present  circum 
stances,"  and  "  the  events  of  the  last  twenty-four  hours,"  the 
following  statement  is  necessary  : 

When  the  State  of  South  Carolina  seceded,  December  20, 
1860,  Major  ROBERT  ANDERSON  commanded  a  small  body  of 
men — about  fifty — stationed  at  Fort  Moid  trie,  in  the  harbor 
of  Charleston.  It  appears  that  the  authorities  at  Washington 
and  the  authorities  at  Charleston  were  anxious  to  prevent  any 
collision  between  the  Federal  Government  and  the  State  Gov 
ernment,  in  relation  to  that  fort,  and  the  command  stationed 
within  it. 

The  Representatives  in  Congress,  JOHN  McQuEEN,  M.  L. 
BONHAM,  W.  W.  BOYCE,  and  LAWRENCE  M.  KEIT,  in  a  letter 
to  President  BUCHANAN,  say :  "  We  now  express  our  strong 
convictions  that  neither  the  constituted  authorities,  nor  any 
body  of  the  people  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina,  will  either 
attack  or  molest  the  United  States  forts  in  the  harbor  of 
Charleston,  previously  to  the  act  of  the  Convention ;  and,  we 
hope  and  believe,  not  until  an  offer  has  been  made,  through 
an  accredited  representation,  to  negotiate  for  an  amicable 
arrangement  of  all  matters  between  the  State  and  the  Federal 
Government ;  provided  that  no  reinforcements  shall  be  sent 


DIPLOMACY.  313 

iuto  these  forts,  and  their  respective  military  status  shall 
remain  as  at  present,"  This  was  the  declaration  for  South 
Carolina. 

The  following  is  the  declaration  for  the  administration  of 
the  Federal  Government.  D.  P.  BUTLER,  Adjutant-General, 
gives  the  following  instructions  to  Major  ANDERSON,  which 
were  approved  by  JOHN  B.  FLOYD,  Secretary  of  War :  "  You 
are  carefully  to  avoid  every  act  which  would  needlessly  pro 
voke  aggression ;  and  for  that  reason,  you  are  not,  without 
necessity,  to  take  up  any  position  which  could  be  construed 
into  a  hostile  attitude ;  but  you  are  to  hold  possession  of  the 
forts  in  the  harbor,  and,  if  you  are  attacked,  you  are  to  defend 
yourself  to  the  last-  extremity.  The  smallness  of  your  force 
will  not  permit  you  to  occupy  more  than  one  of  the  three 
forts ;  but  an  attack  on,  or  attempt  to  take  possession  of  either 
of  them,  will  be  regarded  as  an  act  of  hostility,  and  you  may 
then  put  your  command  into  either  of  them  which  you  deem 
most  proper,  to  increase  the  power  of  resistance.  You  are  also 
authorized  to  take  similar  steps  whenever  you  have  tangible 
evidence  of  a  design  to  proceed  to  a  hostile  act." 

This  was  the  attitude  on  both  sides,  each  deprecating  a 
hostile  act.  But,  on  December  25,  1860,  Major  ANDERSON 
evacuated  Fort  Moultrie,  and  conveyed  all  the  troops  to  Fort 
Sumter,  the  stronger  fort,  having  spiked  the  guns  in  Fort 
Moultrie,  and  l)urnt  the  carriages.  This  was  a  hostile  act,  or 
at  least  must  "  be  construed  into  the  assumption  of  a  hostile 
attitude."  In  thus  acting  beyond  his  written  orders  from  the 
Adjutant-General,  he  assumed  the  responsibility,  and  the  blame , 
whatever  it  is.  At  least,  this  act  of  his  was  an  unfortunate 
one  in  its  effects  on  the  public  mind,  already  sufficiently 
excited. 

This  happened  after  the  arrival  at  "Washington  of  the 
Commissioners  of  South  Carolina,  and  is  alluded  to  as  "the 
events  of  the  last  twenty-four  hours,"  and  as  the  "  present 
circumstances."  They  naturally  felt  greatly  provoked,  as  if 
there  was  a  breach  of  faith.  President  BUCHANAN  must  also 
naturally  have  felt  greatly  dissatisfied.  "  My  first  prompt 
ings,"  he  said,  "  were  to  order  him  back  to  his  former  posi 
tion."  But  there  were  difficulties  in  the  way  of  restoring  the 


314  THE   SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

former,  status ;  arid  he  refused  to  comply  with  the  urgent 
request  of  the  Commissioners,  that  the  troops  be  withdrawn 
from  the  harbor  of  Charleston. 

Thus  the  negotiations  wrere  a  failure.  Major  ANDERSON 
was  applauded  in  Congress,  and  elsewhere,  for  doing  what  he 
did ;  just  as  Commodore  WILKES  was  applauded  for  violating 
the  law  of  nations  in  forcibly  taking  MASON  and  SLIDELL  from 
a  British  steamer,  though  afterwards  condemned. 


DIPLOMACY.       THE    CONFEDERATE    STATES    AND    PRESIDENT   LINCOLN. 

Not  long  after  the  Inauguration  of  Mr.  DAVIS,  the  Con 
federate  Congress  passed  a  resolution  recommending  the 
appointment  of  Commissioners  to  the  Federal  Government, 
by  President  DAVIS,  "  for  the  purpose  of  negotiating  friendly 
relations  between  that  Government  and  the  Confederate  States 
of  America,  and  for  the  settlement  of  all  questions  of  disagree 
ment  between  the  two  Governments,  upon  the  principles  of 
right,  justice,  equity,  and  good  faith."  The  Commissioners 
appointed  were  JOHN  FORSYTH,  MARTIN  CRAWFORD,  and  A.  B. 
ROMAN. 

The  two  former  of  these,  on  March  12,  1861.  addressed  a 
letter  to  Mr.  SEWARD,  Secretary  of  State,  requesting  an  inter 
view  with  the  President,  in  order  to  accomplish  the  objects  of 
their  mission.  This  request  wTas,  by  Mr.  SEWARD  and  the 
President  refused,  in  a  letter  dated  March  15.  They  made 
the  request  on  the  ground  that  "  Seven  States  of  the  late 
Federal  Union,  having,  in  the  exercise  of  an  inherent  right  of 
every  free  people  to  change  or  reform  their  political  institu 
tions,  and  through  conventions  of  their  people,  withdrawn  from 
the  United  States  and  reassumed  the  attributes  of  sovereign 
power  delegated  to  it,  have  formed  a  government  of  their  own. 
The  Confederate  States  constitute  an  independent  nation,  de 
facto  and  de  jure,  and  possess  a  government  perfect  in  all  its 
parts,  and  endowed  with  all  the  means  of  self-support." 

Mr.  SEWARD  refused  their  request,  on  the  ground  that  he 
considers  what  they  call  a  government,  "  only  a  perversion  of 


DIPLOMACY.  315 

a  temporary  partisan  excitement  to  the  inconsiderate  purposes 
of  an  unjustifiable  and  unconstitutional  aggression  upon  the 
rights  and  authority  vested  in  the  Federal  Government,  and 
hitherto  benignly  exercised,  as  from  their  very  nature  they 
always  must  be  so  exercised,  for  the  maintenance  of  the  Union, 
the  preservation  of  liberty,  and  the  security,  peace,  welfare, 
happiness,  and  aggrandizement  of  the  American  people." 

On  the  9th  of  April,  the  Commissioners  addressed  another 
letter  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  in  which  they  spoke  of  "having 
approached  the  Government  of  the  United  States  with  the  olive 
branch  of  peace,"  in  order  "  to  adjust  the  great  questions  pend 
ing  between  them,  in  the  only  way  to  be  justified  by  the  con 
science  and  common  sense  of  good  men,  who  had  nothing  but 
the  welfare  of  the  two  Confederacies  at  heart. 

"  Your  Government  have  not  chosen  to  meet  the  under 
signed  in  the  conciliatory  and  peaceful  spirit  in  which  they  are 
commissioned. 

"  The  undersigned  clearly  understand  that  you  have  declined 
to  appoint  a  day  to  enable  them  to  lay  the  objects  of  the  mis 
sion,  with  which  they  are  charged,  before  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  because  so  to  do  would  be  to  recognize  the 
independence  and  separate  nationality  of  the  Confederate 
States.  This  is  the  vein  of  thought  that  pervades  the 
memorandum  before  us.  The  truth  of  history  requires  that 
it  should  distinctly  appear  upon  the  record,  that  the  under 
signed  did  not  ask  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to 
recognize  the  independence  of  the  Confederate  States.  They 
only  asked  an  audience  to  adjust,  in  a  spirit  of  amity  and 
peace,  the  new  relations  springing  from  a  manifest  and 
accomplished  revolution  in  the  Government  of  the  late  Fed 
eral  Union.  Your  refusal  to  entertain  these  overtures  for  a 
peaceful  solution,  the  active  naval  and  military  preparations 
of  this  Government,  and  a  formal  notice  to  the  commanding 
general  of  the  Confederate  forces  in  the  harbor  of  Charleston, 
that  the  President  intends  to  provision  Fort  Sumter  by  forci 
ble  means,  if  necessary,  are  viewed  by  the  undersigned,  and 
can  only  be  received  by  the  world  as  a  declaration  of  war 
against  the  Confederate  States ;  for  the  President  of  the 


316  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTEOVEESY. 

United  States  knows  that  Fort  Sumter  cannot  be  provisioned 
without  the  effusion  of  blood." 

To  the  letter  containing  these  extracts,  signed  by  the  three 
Commissioners,  Mr.  SEWAED  replies,  that  he  is  not  at  liberty  to 
hold  any  official  communication  with  them. 

While  the  Commissioners  were  in  Washington,  namely, 
from  the  5th  of  March  to  the  9th  of  April,  the  administration 
was  not  idle.  General  SCOTT  advised  the  evacuation  of  Fort 
Sumter,  as  a  military  necessity — the  United  States  having  no 
use  for  the  fort  as  against  a  foreign  enemy ;  Mr.  SEWAED 
encouraged  the  idea,  and  had  declared  that  it  would  be 
evacuated ;  the  country  at  large,  namely,  the  people  in  both 
sections,  were  led  to  hope  that  the  evacuation  would  afford 
time  for  a  peaceful  solution  of  the  difficulties.  And  yet  the 
President  in  that  time  secretly  fitted  out,  and  sent  for  the 
relief  of  Fort  Sumter,  a  fleet  of  8  vessels,  26  guns,  and  1,380 
men.  At  the  very  time  that  the  Commissioners  were  flattered 
by  false  hopes,  and  Mr.  SEWAED  had  signified  that  Fort  Sumter 
would  be  evacuated,  and,  as  late  as  the  7th  of  April,  in  reply 
to  Judge  CAMPBELL,  had  written,  "  Faith  as  to  Sumter  fully 
kept ;  wait,  and  sec  /  "  and  Captain  Fox,  of  the  Federal  Xavy, 
had  been  sent  to  Charleston  and  received  on  the  profession  of 
peaceful  purposes,  Mr.  LINCOLN  was  contriving  how  he  might 
relieve  Fort  Sumter.  This  deceitful  agent,  having  by  this  pre 
tence  carried  despatches  to  Major  ANDEESON,  the  commander 
of  the  fort,  used  his  opportunity  to  devise  a  plan  to  relieve 
Fort  Sumter.  In  antique  style,  he  went  out  a  fox  and  came 
back  a  lion.  His  opinion,  in  opposition  to 'that  of  General 
SCOTT,  had  its  influence  upon  the  President,  who  informed 
him  that  he  had  concluded  to  send  an  expedition  to  Charleston. 

A  portion  of  the  fleet  sailed  on  the  6th  of  April ;  and  two 
days  after— namely,  on  the  8th — Governor  PICKENS,  of  South 
Carolina,  received,  by  Lieutenant  TALBOT,  an  Agent  of  the 
Federal  Government,  the  following  message :  "  I  am  directed, 
by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  to  notify  you  to  expect 
an  attempt  will  be  made  to  supply  Fort  Sumter  with  provisions 
only :  and  if  such  attempt  be  not  resisted,  no  effort  to  throw 
in  men,  arms,  or  ammunition,  will  be  made,  without  further 
notice,  or  in  case  of  an  attack  on  the  fort."  By  this  wily 


DIPLOMACY.  31 T 

notice,  Mr.  LINCOLN  retained  the  power  to  "  throw  in  men, 
arms,  and  ammunition,"  upon  any  notice,  however  short.  The 
first  notice  of  an  attempt  to  supply  the  fort  "  with  provisions  " 
implied  a  subsequent  notice  of  an  attempt  to  supply  it  with 
"  men,  arms,  and  ammunition ;  "  when  the  fleet  should  gain 
a  position  for  supplying  the  one,  they  would  be  in  a  position 
to  supply  the  other.  The  problem  which  Mr,  LINCOLN  tried  to 
work  out,  was  to  put  things  in  such  a  shape  that  the  South 
would  appear  to  commence  hostilities ;  as  when  A  approaches 
B  with  a  pistol,  and  thus  provokes  a  blow,  and  then  charges  B 
with  commencing  the  fight.  The  object  of  Mr.  LINCOLN  seems 
to  have  been  to  draw  the  fire  of  the  Confederates,  and  then  to 
charge  them  with  commencing  the  war.  In  this  he  was  unfor 
tunately  but  too  successful. 

It  was  respectful,  on  the  part  of  the  Confederate  Govern 
ment,  to  send  Commissioners  to  Washington.  Why  were  they 
not  received  as  such  ?  Would  the  British  Ministry  have  refused 
to  receive  Commissioners  immediately  before  or  after  the  com 
mencement  of  the  War  of  the  Revolution?  Did  not  that 
Ministry  actually  send  Commissioners  to  treat  with  the  States 
in  1778  ?  Did  not  General  WASHINGTON  send  Commissioners 
to  treat  with  the  "  leaders  "  and  others  of  the  Whiskey  Insur 
rection,  while  they  were  still  in  array  ? 

In  order  to  understand  the  position  of  the  Administration 
from  the  4th  of  March  to  the  13th  of  April,  it  is  necessary  to 
read  the  letter  of  JOHN  A.  CAMPBELL,  who  was  a  Judge  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  to  Mr.  SEWAED,  dated 
April  13,  1861,  in  which  he  relates  the  conversations  between 
himself  and  Mr.  SEWAED,  in  the  presence  of  Judge  NELSON  of 
the  same  Court. 

In  reviewing  carefully  all  this  diplomacy  and  its  issue,  was 
it  strange  that  there  were  those,  when  speaking  of  Mr.  LINCOLN 
as  the  responsible  head  of  the  Administration,  who  should  say 
that  "  a  double-minded  man  is  unstable  in  his  ways  ;  "  or  that 
others  should  say,  that  "  it  was  his  purpose  to  dupe  and  over 
reach  the  Southern  Commissioners  ;  "  or  that  JEFFEESON  DAVIS, 
in  a  Message  to  the  Southern  Congress,  should  say,  "  The 
crooked  paths  of  diplomacy  can  scarcely  furnish  an  example 
so  wanting  in  courtesy,  in  candor,  and  directness,  as  was  the 


318  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

course  of  the  United  States  Government  towards  our  Commis 
sioners  in  "Washington." 

LETTER    OF   JUDGE   JOHN    A.    CAMPBELL. 

WASHINGTON  CITY,  Saturday,  April  13,  1861. 

SIR  : — On  the,  15th  March  tilt.,  I  left  with  Judge  CRAWFORD, 
one  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Confederate  States,  a  note  in 
writing  to  the  effect  following :  "  I  feel  entire  confidence  that 
Fort  Sumter  will  be  evacuated  in  the  next  ten  days.  And  this 
measure  is  felt  as  imposing  great  responsibility  on  the  Admin 
istration. 

"  I  feel  entire  confidence  that  no  measure  changing  the 
existing  status,  prejudiciously  to  the  Southern  Confederate 
States,  is  at  present  contemplated. 

"  I  feel  an  entire  confidence  that  an  immediate  demand  for 
an  answer  to  the  communication  of  the  Commissioners,  will  be 
productive  of  evil,  and  not  of  good.  I  do  not  believe  that  it 
ought  at  this  time  to  be  pressed." 

The  substance  of  this  statement  I  communicated  to  you 
the  same  evening  by  letter.  Five  days  elapsed,  and  I  called 
with  a  telegram  from  General  BEAUREGARD,  to  the  effect  that 

o  ' 

Sumter  was  not  evacuated,  but  that  Major  ANDERSON  was  at 
work  making  repairs. 

The  next  day,  after  conversing  with  you,  I  communicated 
to  Judge  CRAWFORD  in  writing,  that  the  failure  to  evacuate 
Sumter  was  not  the  result  of  bad  faith,  but  was  attributable 
to  causes  consistent  with  the  intention  to  fulfil  the  engage 
ment  ;  and  that,  as  regarded  Pickens,  I  should  have  notice 
of  any  design  to  alter  the  existing  status  there.  Mr.  Justice 
NELSON  was  present  at  these  conversations,  three  in  number, 
and  I  submitted  to  him  each  of  my  written  communications 
to  Judge  CRAWFORD,  and  informed  Judge  C.  that  they  had  his 
(Judge  NELSON'S)  sanction.  I  gave  you,  on  the  22d  March, 
a  substantial  copy  of  the  statement  I  had  made  on  the  15th. 

The  30th  of  March  arrived,  and  at  that  time  a  telegram 
came  from   Governor   PICKENS    inquiring   concerning   Colonel 
LAMON,  whose  visit  to  Charleston  he  supposed  had  a  connec 
tion  with  the  proposed  evacuation  of  Fort  Sumter. 


LETTER  OF  JUDGE  JOHN  A.  CAMPBELL.  319 

I  left  that  with  you,  and  was  to  have  an  answer  the  follow 
ing  Monday  (1st  April).  On  the  1st  of  April  I  received  from 
you  the  statement  in  writing  :  "  I  am  satisfied  the  Government 
will  not  undertake  to  supply  Fort  Sumter  without  giving  notice 
to  Governor  PICKENS."  The  words,  "  I  am  satisfied,"  were  for 
me  to  use  as  expressive  of  confidence  in  the  remainder  of  the 
declaration. 

The  proposition,  as  originally  prepared,  was,  "  The  Presi 
dent  may  desire  to  supply  Sumter,  but  will  not  do  so,"  &c. ; 
and  your  verbal  explanation  was  that  you  did  not  believe  any 
such  attempt  would  be  made,  and  that  there  was  no  design  to 
reinforce  Sumter. 

There  was  a  departure  here  from  the  pledges  of  the  previous 
month,  but  with  the  verbal  explanation  I  did  not  consider  it 
a  matter  then  to  complain  of ;  I  simply  stated  to  you  that  I 
had  that  assurance  previously. 

On  the  7th  April,  I  addressed  you  a  letter  on  the  subject 
of  the  alarm  that  the  preparations  by  the  Government  had 
created,  and  asked  you  if  the  assurances  I  had  given  were 
well  or  ill  founded.  In  respect  to  Sumter,  your  reply  was, 
"  Faith  as  to  Sumter  fully  kept ;  wait  and  see."  In  the 
morning's  paper  I  read :  "  An  authorized  messenger  from 
President  LINCOLN  informed  Governor  PICKENS  and  General 
BEATJKEGAKD,  that  provisions  will  be  sent  to  Fort  Sumter 
peaceably,  or  otherwise  by  force" 

This  was  the  8th  of  April,  at  Charleston,  the  day  following 
your  last  assurance,  and  is  the  evidence  of  the  full  faith  I  was 
invited  to  wait  for  and  see.  In  the  same  paper  I  read  that 
intercepted  despatches  disclose  the  fact  that  Mr.  Fox,  who 
had  been  allowed  to  visit  Major  ANDERSON,  on  the  pledge  that 
his  purpose  was  pacific,  employed  his  opportunity  to  devise  a 
plan  for  supplying  the  fort  by  force,  and  that  this  plan  had  been 
adopted  by  the  Washington  Government,  and  was  in  process 
of  execution. 

My  recollection  of  the  date  of  Mr.  Fox's  visit  carries  it  to 
a  day  in  March.  I  learn  he  is  a  near  connection  of  a  member 
of  the  Cabinet. 

My  connection  with  the  Commissioners  and  yourself  was 
superinduced  by  a  conversation  with  Justice  NELSON. 


320  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTEOVEESY. 

He  informed  me  of  your  strong  disposition  in  favor  of 
peace,  and  that  you  were  oppressed  with  a  demand  of  the 
Commissioners  of  the  Confederate  States,  for  a  reply  to  their 
lirst  letter,  and  that  you  desired  to  avoid  it,  if  possible,  at  that 
time.  I  told  him  I  might,  perhaps,  be  of  some  service  in 
arranging  the  difficulty.  I  came  to  your  office  entirely  at  his 
request,  and  without  the  knowledge  of  the  Commissioners. 
Your  depression  was  obvious  to  both  Judge  NELSON  and 
myself.  I  was  gratified  at  the  character  of  the  counsels  you 
were  desirous  of  pursuing,  and  much  impressed  with  your 
observation,  that  a  civil  war  might  be  prevented  by  the  suc 
cess  of  my  mediation.  You  read  a  letter  of  Mr.  WEED,  to 
show  how  irksome  and  responsible  the  withdrawal  of  troops 
from  Fort  Sumter  was.  A  portion  of  my  communication  to 
Judge  CEAWFOED,  on  the  15th  of  March,  was  founded  upon 
these  remarks,  and  the  pledge  to  evacuate  Sumter  is  less 
forcible  than  the  words  you  employed.  Those  words  were, 
"  Before  this  letter  reaches  you  (a  proposed  letter  by  me  to 
President  DAVIS),  Sumter  will  have  been  evacuated." 

The  Commissioners  who  received  those  communications 
conclude  they  have  been  abused  and  overreached.  The 
Montgomery  Government  hold  the  same  opinion.  The  Com 
missioners  have  supposed  that  my  communications  were  with 
you,  and  upon  the  hypothesis  prepared  to  arraign  you  before 
the  country  in  connection  with  the  President.  I  placed  a 
peremptory  prohibition  upon  this,  as  being  contrary  to  the 
terms  of  my  communications  with  them.  1  pledged  myself 
to  them  to  commmunicate  information  upon  what  I  considered 
as  the  best  authority,  and  they  were  to  confide  in  the  ability 
of  myself,  aided  by  Judge  NELSON,  to  determine  upon  the 
credibility  of  my  informant. 

I  think  no  candid  man  who  will  read  over  what  I  have 
written,  and  consider  for  a  moment  what  is  going  on  at  Sum 
ter,  will  agree  that  the  equivocating  conduct  of  the  Adminis 
tration,  as  measured  and  interpreted  in  connection  with  promises, 
is  the  proximate  cause  of  the  great  calamity. 

I  have  a  profound  conviction  that  the  telegrams  of  the  8th 
of  April,  of  General  BEATTEEGABD,  and  of  the  10th  of  April, 
of  General  "WALKEE,  the  Secretary  of  War,  can  be  referred  to 


EFFECTS    OF   THE   FALL    OF   SUHTEE.  321 

nothing  else  than  their  belief  that  there  has  been  systematic 
duplicity  practised  upon  them  throughout.  It  is  under  an 
oppressive  sense  of  the  weight  of  this  responsibility  that  I 
submit  to  you  these  things  for  your  explanation. 

Yery  respectfully, 

JOHN  A.  CAMPBELL. 

Hon.  WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD,  Secretary  of  State. 


THE  EFFECTS  OF  THE  FALL  OF  SUMTEE  UPON  THE  SOUTH. 

On  the  intelligence  that  Fort  Sumter,  in  Charleston  harbor, 
had  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the  Confederates,  on  the  13th  of 
April,  1861,  without  the  loss  of  a  man  on  either  side,  great 
joy  and  exultation  were  manifested  in  many  parts  of  the 
Southern  States.  Thus  the  Confederate  Secretary  of  War, 
L.  POPE  WALKEE,  said,  at  a  public  meeting  at  Montgomery, 
the  seat  of  Government :  "  No  man  can  foretell  the  events  of 
the  war  inaugurated ;  but  I  venture  to  predict  that  the  flag 
that  now  floats  on  the  breeze,  will,  before  the  first  of  May, 
float  over  the  dome  of  the  old  Capitol  at  Washington  ;  and 
if  they  choose  to  try  Southern  chivalry,  and  test  the  extent 
of  Southern  resources,  will  eventually  float  over  Faiieuil  Hall 
in  Boston." 

Nothing  could  be  more  ill-judged  than  such  predictions  and 
rhodomontade  from  a  man  high  in  authority.  The  Southern 
States  had  asked  "  to  be  let  alone,"  and  now  the  Secretary  of 
War  threatens  invasion.  "  The  Southern  heart  was  fired  " 
elsewhere  also  to  utter,  in  burning  wrords,  extravagant  hopes 
and  boastful  threatenings.  To  be  consistent,  he  should  have 
said  that  the  South  was  acting  only  on  the  defensive.  By 
saying  what  he  did  say,  he  put  the  South  in  a  false  position. 


ITS    EFFECTS    UPON   THE   NORTH. 

The  attack  upon  Fort  Sumter  and  its  fall,  attended  by  the 
above  boastful  threats,  had  also  the  effect  to  fire  the  Northern 
heart — to  arouse  the  indignation  of  the  people,  not  merely 


322  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

the  ever-wakeful  wrath  of  the  Abolitionists,  but  the  slumbering 
resentment  of  Conservatives.  A  popular  frenzy  spread  through 
the  land,  like  fire  on  the  prairies. 

Mr.  LINCOLN,  April  15,  1861,  without  showing  any  authority 
of  law  or  of  the  Constitution,  called  upon  the  Governors  of 'the 
States  to  furnish  him,  from  the  militia,  with  seventy -five  thou 
sand  men.  "  The  first  service,"  he  says,  "  will  probably  be  to 
repossess  the  forts,  places,  and  property  which  have  been  seized 
from  the  Union  ;  and  in  every  event,  the  utmost  care  will  be 
observed,  consistently  with  the  objects  aforesaid,  to  avoid  any 
devastation,  any  destruction  of,  or  interference  with  property, 
or  any  disturbance  of  peaceful  citizens  of  any  part  of  the 
country." 

The  Governors  of  the  Northern  States,  under  Republican 
rule,  eagerly  complied  with  the  requisition.  Like  hounds 
"  crouching  for  employment,"  they  sprang  from  the  leash 
towards  the  game  now  in  sight. 

Governor  BURTON,  of  Delaware,  issued  his  proclamation, 
May  26,  recommending  the  formation  of  volunteer  companies 
for  the  protection  of  Delaware ;  these  companies  not  to  be 
subject  to  the  call  of  the  Executive,  but  having  the  option  of 
offering  their  service  to  the  General  Government. 

Governor  HICKS  issued  his  proclamation,  May  14,  saying 
that  the  troops  would  be  employed  in  Maryland,  and  for  the 
defence  of  the  Capital. 

Governor  LETCHER,  of  Virginia,  replied  that  "  the  militia 
of  Virginia  will  not  be  furnished  to  the  powers  at  Washington 
for  any  such  purpose.  Your  object  is  to  subjugate  the  South 
ern  States,  and  the  requisition  made  upon  me  for  such  an 
object — an  object,  in  my  judgment,  not  within  the  purview 
of  the  Constitution,  or  the  Act  of  1795 — will  not  be  complied 
with.  You  have  chosen  to  inaugurate  civil  war,  and  having 
done  so,  wre  will  meet  it  in  a  spirit  as  determined  as  the  Ad 
ministration  has  exhibited  towards  the  South." 

Governor  ELLIS,  of  North  Carolina,  in  his  reply,  says : 
"  Your  despatch  is  received,  and,  if  genuine — -which  its  extra 
ordinary  character  leads  me  to  doubt — I  have  to  say,  in  reply, 
that  I  regard  the  levy  of  troops,  made  by  the  Administration, 
for  the  purpose  of  subjugating  the  States  of  the  South,  as  in 


POSITION   OF   THE   AGGRIEVED    STATES.  323 

violation  of  the  Constitution,  and  a  usurpation  of  power.  I 
can  be  no  party  to  this  wicked  violation  of  the  laws  of  the 
country,  and  to  this  war  upon  the  liberties  of  a  free  people." 

Governor  MAGOFFIN,  of  Kentucky,  answered :  "  Your  de 
spatch  is  received.  In  answer,  I  say  emphatically,  Kentucky 
will  furnish  no  troops,  for  the  wicked  purpose  of  subduing  her 
sister  Southern  States." 

Governor  HARRIS,  of  Tennessee,  said,  in  reply:  "Tennessee 
will  not  furnish  a  single  man  for  coercion,  but  fifty  thousand, 
if  necessary,  for  the  defence  of  our  rights  and  those  of  our 
Southern  brethren." 

Governor  JACKSON,  of  Missouri,  replied :  "  Your  requi 
sition  is  illegal,  unconstitutional,  revolutionary,  inhuman,  and 
diabolical,  and  cannot  be  complied  with." 

Governor  HECTOR,  of  Arkansas,  replied :  "  None  will  be 
furnished.  The  demand  is  only  adding  insult  to  injury." 

These  eight  Governors  refused  to  comply  with  an  uncon 
stitutional  requisition,  just  as  the  New  England  Governors 
did  in  the  war  of  1812. 


POSITION    OF    THE   AGGRIEVED    STATES. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA,  by  an  ordinance  of  secession,  see  page 
223,  December,  1860,  resumed  the  powers  delegated  by  the 
State  when  she  adopted  the  Federal  Constitution  ;  MISSISSIPPI, 
on  the  9th  of  January,  1861 ;  FLORIDA,  on  the  10th ;  ALABAMA, 
on  the  17th  ;  GEORGIA,  on  the  25th ;  LOUISIANA,  on  the  1st  of 
February  ;  TEXAS,  on  the  6th  of  May  ;  ARKANSAS,  on  the  21st ; 
TENNESSEE,  on  the  24th  of  June ;  and  VIRGINIA,  on  the  24th, 
severally  resumed  the  powers  delegated  to  the  Federal  Gov 
ernment. 

KENTUCKY  assembled  the  Legislature,  January  17,  1861. 
The  House,  by  a  vote  of  87  to  6,  resolved  to  resist  the  invasion 
of  the  South.  The  Legislature,  on  the  27th,  adopted  the  Vir 
ginia  Resolutions,  requiring  the  Federal  Government  to  protect 
slavery  in  the  Territories,  and  to  guarantee  the  right  of  transit 
of  slaves  through  the  Free  States.  On  February  2d,  the  Senate 
passed  a  vote,  appealing  to  the  Southern  States  to  stop  the  revo- 


324  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

lution,  and  protesting  against  Federal  coercion.  On  May  20th, 
Governor  MAGOFFIN  issued  a  neutrality  proclamation. 

In  MARYLAND,  the  House  of  Delegates  passed  resolutions 
declaring  that  Maryland  protests  against  the  war,  and  beseech 
ing  and  imploring  the  President  to  make  peace  with  the  Con 
federate  States  ;  and  also,  "  that  the  State  of  Maryland  desires 
the  peaceful  and  immediate  independence  of  the  Confederate 
States." 

On  the  13th,  Committees  were  appointed  to  visit  the  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States,  and  the  President  of  the  Southern 
Confederacy.  On  the  20th,  the  House  of  Delegates,  and,  011 
June  22d,  the  Senate,  adopted  resolutions  unqualifiedly  protest 
ing  against  the  arrest  of  Eoss  WINANS,  and  sundry  other  citizens 
of  Maryland,  "  as  an  oppressive  and  tyrannical  assertion  and 
exercise  of  military  jurisdiction  within  the  limits  of  Maryland 
over  the  persons  and  property  of  her  citizens  by  the  Govern 
ment  of  the  United  States." 

MISSOURI  assembled  a  Convention  February  28,  1861 ;'  re 
fused  to  take  the  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States ;  were  opposed  to  secession,  and  to  the  coercion 
of  the  seceding  States,  and  in  favor  of  the  CRITTENDEN  Reso 
lutions.  The  Senate  passed  a  vote  instructing  their  Senators, 
and  requesting  their  representatives  in  Congress  to  oppose  the 
passage  of  all  acts  granting  supplies  of  money  and  men  to 
coerce  the  seceding  States. 


Mr.  LINCOLN,  having  practically  declared  war  against  the 
Confederate  States,  on  the  15th  of  April,  1861,  on  the  same 
day,  summoned  Congress  to  assemble,  on  the  4th  of  July. 
The  Congress  that  had  been  in  session  until  the  4th  of  March, 
refused  to  do  any  thing  involving  a  war,  though  well  acquainted 
with  the  condition  of  the  country.  Instead  of  convening  Con 
gress  immediately,  as  common  prudence  required  that  he  should, 
four  months  passed  away  before  the  extra  session,  during  which 
term  the  President  did  every  thing  in  his  own  way,  whether 
constitutional  or  not. 


RESOLUTION   APPROVING   THE    ILLEGAL    ACTS. 


525 


In  his  message,  delivered  July  4,  1861,  the  President 
apologizes  for  going  contrary  to  the  advice  of  General  SCOTT 
and  other  military  men,  who  considered  the  surrender  of  Fort 
Sumter  as  a  "  military  necessity"  by  saying,  that  "  the  necessity 
under  which  it  was  done  would  not  be  fully  understood ;  and 
that  by  many  it  would  be  considered  as  a  part  of  a  voluntary 
policy."  The  people  had  not  then  been  so  schooled  in  the 
doctrine  of  "  necessity  "  as  they  were  afterwards,  when  many 
of  them  considered  it  as  the  grand  central  political  doctrine, 
superior  to  the  Constitution. 

Having  thus  described  how,  for  the  sake  of  appearances,  he 
had  refused  to  surrender  the  fort,  and  how  he  had  contrived  to 
draw  fire  upon  it,  he,  in  view  of  the  issue,  says :  "  No  choice 
was  left  l)ut  to  call  out  the  war  power  of  the  Government" 
That  is,  he  had  contrived  to  place  the  affair  in  such  a  state, 
that  he  had  no  choice  "  but  to  call  out  the  war  power." 

Where  did  Mr.  LINCOLN  get  the  authority  to  "  call  out  the 
war  power  ?  "  By  the  Constitution,  Congress  only  have  power 
"  to  declare  war,  and  raise  and  support  armies ; "  but  not  the 
President. 

He  also  makes  a  sort  of  apology  for  suspending  the  privilege 
of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  He  also  disclaims  "  any  coercion, 
any  conquest,  any  subjugation,  in  any  just  sense  of  those  terms." 
What  were  the  illegal  acts  of  which  he  was  guilty,  will  appear 
from  the  following  resolution. 


RESOLUTION    APPROVING   THE   ILLEGAL   PRESIDENTIAL   ACTS. 

The  joint  resolution  approving  of  the  President's  acts  was 
read  in  the  Senate  on  the  10th  day  of  July,  1861,  and  was  as 
follows : 

"  Whereas,  Since  the  adjournment  of  Congress,  on  the  4th 
day  of  March  last,  a  formidable  insurrection  in  certain  States 
of  this  Union  has  arrayed  itself  in  armed  hostility  to  the  Gov 
ernment  of  the  United  States,  constitutionally  administered ; 
and  whereas  the  President  of  the  United  States  did,  under  the 
extraordinary  exigencies  thus  presented,  exercise  certain  powers 


326  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

and  adopt  certain  measures  for  the  preservation  of  this  Govern 
ment — that  is  to  say  : 

First.  He  did,  on  the  15th  day  of  April  last,  issue  his 
proclamation  calling  upon  the  several  States  for  seventy-five 
thousand  men  to  suppress  such  insurrectionary  combinations, 
and  to  cause  the  laws  to  be  faithfully  executed. 

Secondly.  He  did,  on  the  19th  day  of  April  last,  issue  a 
proclamation  setting  on  foot  a  blockade  of  the  ports  within  the 
States  of  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama,  Florida,  Missis 
sippi,  Louisiana,  and  Texas. 

Thirdly.  He  did,  on  the  27th  day  of  April  last,  issue  a 
proclamation  establishing  a  blockade  of  the  ports  within  the 
States  of  Virginia  and  North  Carolina. 

Fourthly.  He  did,  by  order  of  the  27th  day  of  April  last, 
addressed  to  the  Commanding  General  of  the  Army  of  the 
United  States,  authorize  that  officer  to  suspend  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus  at  any  point  on  or  in  the  vicinity  of  any  military 
line  between  the  city  of  Philadelphia  and  the  city  of  Wash 
ington. 

Fifthly.  He  did,  on  the  3d  day  of  May  last,  issue  a  procla 
mation  calling  into  the  service  of  the  United  States  forty-two 
thousand  and  thirty-four  volunteers,  increasing  the  Regular 
Army  by  the  addition  of  twenty-two  thousand  seven  hundred 
and  fourteen  men,  and  the  Navy  by  an  addition  of  eighteen 
thousand  seamen. 

Sixthly.  He  did,  on  the  10th  day  of  May  last,  issue  a 
proclamation  authorizing  the  commander  of  the  forces  of  the 
United  States  on  the  coast  of  Florida  to  suspend  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus,  if  necessary.  All  of  which  proclamations  and 
orders  have  been  submitted  to  this  Congress.  Now,  therefore, 

Be  it  Resolved,  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives 
of  the  United  States  of  America  assembled,  That  all  of  the 
extraordinary  acts,  proclamations,  and  orders,  hereinbefore  men 
tioned,  be  and  the  same  are  hereby  approved,  and  declared 
to  be  in  all  respects  legal  and  valid,  to  the  same  intent,  and 
with  the  same  effect,  as  if  they  had  been  issued  and  done  under 
the  previous  express  authority  and  direction  of  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States. 


PRESIDENT   LINCOLN'S    ILLEGAL   ACTS.  327 

111  his  Inaugural  Message,  Mr.  LINCOLN  gave  great  promi 
nence  to  the  binding  force  of  the  oath  of  office,  to  preserve, 
protect,  and  defend  the  Constitution.  It  seemed  as  if  his  con 
science  had  great  sensibility  on  this  point.  In  five  different 
paragraphs  he  alluded  to  his  official  oath. 

Yet,  in  less  than  two  months  after  he  took  that  oath,  and 
in  his  Message  paraded  it  before  the  people  of  the  States,  he 
violated  that  oath,  by  six  different  formal  acts.  These  acts  we 
have  just  seen,  for  doing  which,  his  friends  brought  in  this 
joint  resolution,  by  which  Congress  might  grant  him  absolu 
tion.  This  joint  resolution,  after  being  thoroughly  debated, 
never  came  to  a  direct  vote  ;  the  violations  of  the  Constitution 
being  so  palpable  and  flagrant,  that  some  of  his  own  party 
refused  to  pass  it. 

By  the  Constitution,  Congress  only  has  power  "  to  declare 
war  "  and  "  raise  and  support  armies."  In  the  cases  first  and 
third  mentioned  above,  he  usurped  that  power.  E"o  President 
before  ABE  AH  AM  LINCOLN  had  ever  dared  to  do  such  an  out 
rageous  act.  Even  General  JACKSON  asked  Congress  for  a  law 
to  enable  him  to  act ;  just  as  President  BUCHANAN  did  in  the 
session  of  1860-1861.  Hear  what  DANIEL  WEBSTER  said  at 
Worcester,  in  1832 :  "  The  President  has  no  authority  to 
employ  military  force  until  he  should  be  duly  required  to  do 
so  by  law  and  the  civil  authorities.  His  duty  is  to  cause  the 
law  to  be  executed.  His  duty  is  to  support  the  civil  author 
ities.  His  duty  is,  if  the  laws  be  resisted,  to  employ  the  mili 
tary  force  of  the  country,  if  necessary  for  that  support,  that 
execution  ;  but  to  do  all  this  in  compliance  only  with  law,  and 
the  decisions  of  the  tribunals. 

"  If,  by  any  ingenious  device,  those  wrho  resist  the  laws, 
escape  from  the  reach  of  the  judicial  authority,  as  it  is  now 
provided  to  be  exercised,  it  is  entirely  competent  in  Congress 
to  make  such  new  laivs  as  the  exigency  of  the  case  may  de 
mand." 

In  the  same  strain,  Mr.  DOUGLAS  said,  in  the  United  States 
Senate,  March  15,  1861 :  "  If,  on  the  contrary,  the  insurrection 
be  against  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  instead  of  a  State,  the 
President  can  use  the  military,  only  as  a  posse  comitatus,  in  aid 
of  the  Marshal,  in  cases  that  are  so  extreme  that  the  judicial 
22 


328  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

authority  and  the  power  of  the  Marshal  cannot  put  down  the 
obstruction.  The  military  cannot  be  used,  in  any  case  what 
ever,  except  in  aid  of  the  civil  process,  to  aid  the  Marshal  in 
executing  a  writ." 

Instead  of  heeding  teachings  like  these,  he  hastened,  in  his 

O  o  / 

own  language,  and  that  of  his  subsidized  retainers,  "  to  call  out 
the  war  power,"  in  violation  of  his  oath. 

So,  in  the  second  and  sixth  cases  he  violated  the  Constitu 
tion  by  his  blockade  proclamations.  The  Constitution  gives 
to  Congress  the  power  "  to  regulate  commerce  with  foreign 
nations,"  and  declares  that  "  no  preference  shall  be  given,  by 
any  regulation  of  commerce  or  revenue,  to  the  ports  in  one 
State  over  those  of  another." 

If  the  States  named  above  were  still  in  the  Union,  then 
neither  Congress  nor  the  President  had  any  right  to  blockade 
the  ports,  and  thus  "  give  a  preference  to  the  ports  of  one  State 
over  those  of  another  State."  If  they  were  not  in  the  Union, 
and  therefore  are  to  be  treated  as  foreign  States,  then  only 
Congress,  and  not  the  President,  had  power  to  blockade  those 
ports. 

Mr.  WEBSTER,  also  in  the  same  speech,  denies  the  right  of 
President  JACKSON  to  blockade  the  port  of  Charleston.  "  We 
are  told,  Sir,  that  the  President  will  immediately  order  the 
military  force  to  blockade  the  port  of  Charleston.  A  military 
remedy,  a  remedy  by  direct  belligerent  operation,  has  thus 
been  suggested  as  the  intended  means  of  preserving  the 
Union.  *  *  *  For  one,  Sir,  I  raise  my  voice  beforehand 
against  the  unauthorized  employment  of  military  power,  and 
against  superseding  the  authority  of  the  laws  by  an  armed 
force  under  pretence  of  putting  down  Nullification." 

And  yet  Mr.  LINCOLN  arrogated  to  himself  the  authority  to 
blockade  the  Southern  ports,  and  thus  violated  his  oath. 

So,  in  the  third  and  sixth  cases,  he  violated  the  Constitu 
tion  by  the  order  and  the  proclamation  suspending  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus.  Judge  TANEY,  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  decided  that  the  President,  under  the  Constitution  and 
laws  of  the  United  States,  "  cannot  suspend  the  privilege  of  the 
writ  of  hcibeas  corpus,  nor  authorize  any  military  officer  to  do 
so."  This  opinion,  which  had  never  been  questioned,  he  sus- 


CENSURE  OF  THE  PRESIDENT.  329 

tained  by  incontrovertible  evidence.  It  is  true  that  Attorney- 
General  BATES,  a  member  of  his  Cabinet,  in  a  misty,  meta 
physical  argument,  endeavored,  in  vain,  to  sustain  the  Presi 
dent  in  his  usurpation.  Thus  again  the  President  violated  his 
oath. 

This  joint  Resolution  was  afterwards,  in  part,  passed  upon 
in  the  Senate  in  the  way  of  approving  some  of  the  Presidential 
acts.  But  Congress,  afterwards,  in  1861  and  1863,  vindicated 
its  own  powers,  by  passing  a  bill  suspending  the  privilege  of 
the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  /  thus  putting  the  President  to  shame 
for  his  usurpation. 

While  the  bill  with  respect  to  Mr.  LINCOLN'S  illegal  acts 
was  under  consideration,  Mr.  YALLANDIGHAM  brought  forward 
the  following  Resolutions : 


CENSURE    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

On  the  15th  day  of  July,  1861,  Mr.  YALLANDIGHAM  offered 
the  following  Resolutions  in  the  House,  and  moved  their  refer 
ence  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union  : 

"Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
confers  upon  Congress  alone  the  power  to  i  raise  and  support 
armies  '  and  to  c  provide  and  maintain  a  navy  ; '  and  therefore 
the  President,  in  the  proclamation  of  May  3,  1861,  and  the 
orders  and  action,  by  his  authority,  of  the  War  and  Navy 
Departments,  increasing  the  Army  and  Navy,  and  calling  for 
and  accepting  the  services  of  volunteers  for  three  years  without 
warrant  of  law,  usurped  powers  belonging  solely  to  Congress, 
and  so  violated  the  Constitution. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  right  to  declare  a  blockade  as  against 
an  independent  power,  is  a  belligerent  right,  depending  upon 
the  existence  of  a  state  of  war ;  and  that  as  Congress,  and 
Congress  alone,  have  the  power  to  declare  or  recognize  the 
existence  of  war,  the  President  has  no  right  to  order  a  blockade 
until  after  Congress  shall  have  declared  or  recognized  war  with 
the  power  whose  ports  are  to  be  blockaded ;  and  further,  that 
Congress  alone  can  abolish  or  shut  up  the  ports  of  entry  of  any 
State  within  the  Union  ;  and  that,  therefore,  the  President,  in 


330  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

blockading  and  shutting  up  the  ports  of  entry  in  certain  of  the 
States  of  the  Union,  without  the  authority  of  Congress,  violated 
the  Constitution. 

"  Resolved,  That  Congress  alone  have  the  constitutional 
power  to  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  /  and  that  until 
the  writ  has  been  suspended  by  act  of  Congress,  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  President,  and  all  other  officers,  civil  and  military,  to 
obey  it ;  and  that  therefore  the  President,  in  suspending  said 
writ  himself,  or  attempting  to  authorize  certain  military  officers 
to  suspend  it,  or  to  disobey  it,  or  in  sustaining  them  in  disobe 
dience  to  it,  violated  the  Constitution. 

"  Resolved,  That  by  the  Constitution,  <  no  money  shall  be 
drawn  from  the  Treasury,  but  in  consequence  of  appropriations 
made  by  law ; '  and  that  in  ordering  the  drawing  from  the 
Treasury  of  money  unappropriated,  or  appropriated  for  one 
purpose,  and  applying  the  same  to  purposes  for  which  no 
appropriations  had  been  made  by  law,  the  President  violated 
the  Constitution. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  search  of  certain  telegraph  offices  in 
the  month  of  May  last  by  officers  and  agents  of  the  Executive, 
without  search  warrant  upon  probable  cause,  supported  by 
oath  or  affirmation,  and  particularly  describing  the  place  to 
be  searched,  and  the  things  to  be  siezed ;  and  the  seizure  of 
papers  and  despatches  in  said  offices,  was  a  violation  of  the 
constitutional  '  right  of  the  people  to  be  secure  in  their  persons, 
houses,  papers,  and  effects,  against  unreasonable  searches  and 
seizures  ; '  and  that  the  President,  in  ordering  said  searches  and 
seizures,  violated  the  Constitution. 

"  Resolved,  That  neither  Congress,  nor  the  President,  nor 
the  judiciary,  have  any  constitutional  power  to  abridge  the 
freedom  of  speech  or  of  the  press  ;  and  that  the  suspension  of 
newspaper  presses  by  military  authority  and  force,  and  the 
arrest  of  citizens  by  military  or  civil  authority,  for  the  expresr 
sion  by  speech,  or  through  the  press,  of  opinions  upon  political 
subjects  or  subjects  of  srny  kind,  is  a  violation  of  the  Consti 
tution. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  arrest,  without  civil  process,  of  persons 
not  subject  to  the  rules  and  articles  of  war,  nor  in  cases  arising 
in  the  land  or  naval  forces  or  in  the  militia,  when  in  actual 


PERVERSION   OF   THE   FEDERAL    CONSTITUTION.  331 

service,  by  soldiers  in  the  service  of  the  United  States,  is  a 
breach  of  the  Constitution,  and  a  violation  of  the  constitutional 
liberty  of  the  person." 

These  Resolutions  were  laid  on  the  table  by  the  majority ; 
thus  stifling  discussion,  which  they  dared  not  encounter. 


PERVERSION    OF   THE   FEDERAL    CONSTITUTION. 

As  soon  as  it  was  found  that  war  was  to  be  waged  against 
the  seceded  States,  for  which  the  Federal  Constitution  makes 
no  provision,  there  started  up  several  ingenious  and  eloquent 
writers,  who  undertook  to  find  in  it  powers  not  delegated  to 
the  Federal  Government.  Some  of  them  went  so  far  as  to 
affirm  that  the  Federal  Constitution,  framed  as  it  was  with 
great  care,  and  adopted  with  great  caution  by  the  States, 
might,  by  a  kind  of  legerdemain  interpretation,  be  made 'to 
mean  any  thing  that  the  powers  that  be  at  Washington  wished 
to  have  it  mean ;  so  that,  in  this  way,  the  reserved  rights  of 
the  States  might  be  made  to  dwindle  into  insignificance,  while 
the  delegated  powers  might  be  made  to  assume  giant  propor 
tions.  This,  some  of  them  did  under  the  influence  of  what  one 
of  them  calls  a  "passionate  loyalty,"  a  loyalty  not  to  the  Con 
stitution,  but  to  the  existing  authorities  at  Washington. 

One  of  these — EDWARD  EVERETT — who  was  more  guarded  in 
statements  than  some  others,  published  an  address,  a  portion  of 
which  was  delivered  on  the  4th  of  July,  1861,  learned,  eloquent, 
and  instructive,  but  greatly  at  variance  with  his  former  ex 
pressed  opinions.  These  former  opinions  I  put  against  his 
declarations  in  the  address  as  their  best  refutation. 

Another  Massachusetts  man,  though  residing  abroad — Mr. 
MOTLEY — addressed  a  letter  in  May,  1861,  to  the  London  Times, 
which  is  false  frequently  in  the  facts  stated  or  defective  and 
illogical  in  its  conclusions.  This  letter  may  have  suited  his 
purpose  with  British  readers,  but  is  too  superficial  and  flippant 
to  satisfy  intelligent  Americans  who  are  acquainted  with  the 
history  and  provisions  of  the  Federal  Constitution.  If  this 
letter  on  "  The  Causes  of  the  Civil  War  "  is  a  fair  specimen 
of  the  manner  in  which  he  investigates  historical  questions,  his 


332  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

volumes  of  history,  however  eloquently  written,  are  worthy  of 
but  little  confidence. 

Thus  he  says :  "  The  body  politic  known  as  the  United 
States,  is  not  a  Confederacy"  "  It  was  an  accepted  fact  that 
the  United  States  was  not  a  Confederacy." 

In  opposition  to  these  dogmatic  assertions  I  would  ask, 
Why  did  the  first  Senate  assembled  under  the  Federal  Consti 
tution  call  the  United  States  a  "  Confederated  Republic  ?  " 
And  why  did  President  WASHINGTON,  in  reply  to  their  address, 
call  it  a  "  Confederated  Republic  ?  "  Why  did  JOHN  QUINCY 
ADAMS  call  the  Union  a  "  Federation,  composed  partly  of  free 
and  partly  of  slave  States  ? "  Why  did  MARSHALL  call  it  a 
Confederacy  ?  Why  did  Judge  McLEAN  call  it  a  Confederacy  ? 
Mr.  MOTLEY  can  hardly  have  the  arrogance  to  say  that  he 
understands  the  nature  of  the  Federal  Union  better  than  these 
statesmen  did. 

Mr.  MOTLEY  says,  as  printed  in  the  "  Rebellion  Record," 
in  one  place,  the  Constitution  does  not  speak  "  the  word  con 
federacy."  In  another  place  he  says,  "  the  word  (confederacy) 
was  never  used  in  the  Constitution  but  once."  This  is  contra 
diction.  The  word  u  confederation  "is  used  twice. 

The  term  United  States  is  a  union  of  States,  and  not  a 
union  of  people,  considered  as  individuals,  and  does  not  mean 
the  same  as  united  people.  It  means  the  same  as  the  term 
Federal  Union,  or  Confederate  Union,  or  Confederate  Repub 
lic,  or  Confederacy,  or  the  Union.  These  can  be  used  inter 
changeably,  though  the  shortest  term  has  been  used  most  fre 
quently. 

Mr.  MOTLEY  affirms  that  "  the  Constitution  of  1787  made 
us  a  nation."  This  it  did,  but  only  in  a  qualified  sense,  and 
these  qualifications  he  omits  to  state.  -  The  States — that  is,  the 
United  States — in  the  old  Federal  Constitution  called  "  the 
Articles  of  Confederation,"  delegated  to  Congress  the  power 
to  exercise  certain  rights  of  sovereignty,  such  as  declaring  war, 
&c.,  and  so  far  fortli  made  us  a  nation.  The  new  Federal 
Constitution,  framed  in  1787,  delegated  to  Congress  and  the 
Executive  and  the  judiciary — that  is,  to  the  Federal  Govern 
ment — the  power  to  exercise  still  larger  rights  of  sovereignty, 
and  so  far  forth  made  us  a  nation.  But  in  each  case  there 


PEKVEKSION    OF   THE   FEDERAL    CONSTITUTION.  333 

were  large  rights  reserved  to  the  States  severally,  and  so  far 
as  these  reserved  rights  are  concerned,  each  State  has  the 
attributes  of  nationality.  This  is  in  accordance  with  the  judg 
ment  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  Following 
Mr.  MOTLEY'S  mode  of  reasoning,  I  might  say  that  the  Federal 
Constitution  says  not  one  word  about  being  a  nation,  does  not 
even  use  the  word  itself  in  a  single  instance.  More  than  this, 
the  Constitutional  Convention,  by  vote,  even  struck  the  word 
"  national "  out  of  the  Constitution,  as  having  no  place  there. 
See  p.  47,  S.  C.  The  power  to  exercise  certain  functions  that 
are  national  was  delegated  by  the  States,  and  this  power  can 
be  resumed  by  a  vote  of  the  States,  acting  as  Federal  or  Con 
federate,  through  their  legislatures  or  conventions. 

Mr.  MOTLEY  asserts  that  "  the  Constitution  was  not  drawn 
up  by  the  States,  it  was  not  promulgated  in  the  name  of  the 
States,  it  was  not  ratified  by  the  States.  The  States  never 
acceded  to  it."  By  whom  then  was  it  drawn  up,  and  promul 
gated,  and  ratified  ? 

The  true  answer  is,  that  it  was  drawn  up  by  the  Conven 
tion,  each  State  sending  its  own  delegates  to  it,  each  State 
voting  upon  it  having  an  equal  vote  with  the  others,  and  thus 
was  drawn  up  by  the  States  and  so  declared,  "  Done  in  Con 
vention  by  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  States  present."  If 
either  the  Convention  or  Congress  promulgated  it,  the  States 
promulgated  it ;  for  in  both  those  bodies  the  voting  was  by 
States.  It  was  ratified  by  States,  each  State  acting  in  and  by 
a  Convention. 

As  to  the  declaration  of  Mr.  MOTLEY  that  "  the  States 
never  acceded  to  it,"  I  have  only  to  refer  the  reader  to  page 
250,  where  it  appears  that  WASHINGTON  and  FKANKLIN,  &c., 
contradict  the  assertion  of  Mr.  MOTLEY.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
each  State,  in  order,  acceded  to  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  MOTLEY  asserts  that  the  Constitution  was  ordained  and 
established  "  by  the  people  of  the  whole  land  in  their  aggregate 
capacity."  This  is  a  very  extraordinary  assertion.  Does  he 
mean  that  a  majority  of  the  people  in  the  whole  land,  made  it 
obligatory  upon  the  people  of  any  one  State  without  its  con 
sent  ?  What  was  the  number  of  that  majority  ?  Where  is  it 
to  be  found  ?  Did  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  by  nine 


334  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

States,  make  it  binding  upon  the  four  remaining  ones ;  upon 
Rhode  Island  and  North  Carolina,  which,  for  two  years  or 
more,  refused  to  "  accede "  to  it  ?  The  Constitution  itself 
settles  this  question,  Article  VII.  "  The  ratification  of  the 
Conventions  of  nine  States  shall  be  sufficient  for  the  establish 
ment  of  this  Constitution  'between  the  States  so  ratifying  the 
same"  The  word  between  shows  that  it  was  a  Federal  or 
Confederate  act.  In  adopting  the  Federal  Constitution,  each 
State  acted  by  itself  and  for  itself.  The  States  acted  sever 
ally,  and  not  in  their  aggregate  capacity.  It  was  the  majority 
in  each  State — that  is,  a  majority  in  the  Convention  in  each 
State — that  ratified  it. 

Mr.  MOTLEY  quotes  from  the  letter  written  by  the  Conven 
tion,  recommending  the  Constitution,  not  to  the  people,  as  he 
incorrectly  says,  but  to  the  States  in  Congress  assembled : 
"  We  have  kept  steadily  in  view  that  which  appeared  to  us 
the  greatest  interest  of  every  true  American,  the  consolidation 
of  the  Union,  in  which  is  involved  our  prosperity,  safety, 
perhaps  our  national  existence."  A  consolidated  Union  is  one 
thing,  a  consolidated  Government  is  quite  another.  The  recom 
mendation  b}  the  Convention  of  a  consolidated  Government 
might  have  weakened  or  destroyed  the  Union. 

He  then  quotes  from  PATRICK  HENRY'S  speech,  which  he 
uttered  under  a  misapprehension  :  "  That  this  is  a  consolidated 
Government,  is  demonstrably  clear.  The  language  is  we  the 
people,  instead  of  we  the  States.  It  must  be  one  great  con 
solidated  National  Government." 

Mr.  MOTLEY  does  not  quote  the  reply  of  Mr.  MADISON,  in 
which  he  corrects  the  misapprehension  of  Mr.  HENRY.  After 
saying  that  the  proposed  Government  is  not  entirely  Consoli 
dated  nor  entirely  Federal,  he  goes  on  to  say :  "  Who  are  the 
parties  to  it  ?  The  people ;  but  not  the  people  as  composing 
one  great  body  ;  but  the  people  as  composing  thirteen  sove 
reignties.  Were  it,  as  the  gentleman  asserts,  a  consolidated 
Government,  a  consent  of  a  majority  of  the  people  would  be 
sufficient ;  and  as  a  majority  have  adopted  it  (eight  States) 
already,  the  remaining  States  would  be  bound  by  the  act  of 
the  majority,  even  if  they  unanimously  reprobated  it.  Were 
it  such  a  Government  as  is  suggested,  it  would  be  now  binding 


PERVERSION    OF   THE   FEDERAL    CONSTITUTION.  335 

on  the  people  of  this  State,  without  having  had  the  privilege 
of  deliberating  on  it.  But  no  State  is  bound  by  it  without  its 
own  consent.  Should  all  the  States  adopt  it,  it  will  then  be  a 
Government  established  by  the  Thirteen  States  of  America ; 
not  by  the  Legislatures,  but  by  the  people  (of  each  State)  at 
large." 

This  reply  of  Mr.  MADISON,  a  leading  member  of  the  Fed 
eral  Convention,  appears  to  have  satisfied  the  "  Forest  born 
Demosthenes  "  on  this  point ;  and  ought  to  satisfy  Mr.  MOT 
LEY.  Mr.  MADISON  himself,  Mr.  PENDLETON,  the  President  of 
the  Virginia  Convention,  Governor  RANDOLPH,  GEORGE  MASON, 
as  well  as  Mr.  HENEY,  were  opposed  to  a  consolidated  Govern 
ment  ;  and  Mr.  MADISON  showed  distinctly  that  "  we  the  people  " 
meant  the  people  in  the  several  States,  acting  separately,  fed 
erally,  and  not  the  "  people  in  the  aggregate." 

Mr.  MOTLEY  also  says :  u  The  Constitution  was  not  a  compact. 
Who  ever  heard  of  a  compact  to  which  there  were  no  parties  ? 
Or  who  ever  heard  of  a  compact  made  by  a  single  party  with 
himself?  "  If  the  above  statement  of  Mr.  MADISON  is  not  sat 
isfactory  on  this  point,  as  it  ought  to  be,  I  would  refer  him 
to  leading  statesmen  in  Massachusetts,  and  of  the  country  at 
large.  Or  I  would  refer  him  to  the  Dictionary  of  Dr.  NOAH 
WEBSTER.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  Mr.  WEBSTER  was 
one  of  the  original  proposers  of  the  present  Federal  Constitu 
tion,  and  was  invited  to  New  York  by  JOHN  JAY,  RUFUS  KING, 
and  others,  to  establish  a  newspaper  to  defend  that  Constitu 
tion,  which  he  did  with  great  ability.  In  his  Dictionary,  under 
the  word  "  Federal,"  he  says,  "  2.  Consisting  in  a  compact 
between  parties,  particularly  and  chiefly  between  States  and 
nations ;  founded  on  alliance  by  contract  or  mutual  agree 
ment  ;  as  a  federal  government,  such  as  that  of  the  United 
States"  See  also  the  word  "  compact." 

Mr.  MOTLEY  also  says,  that  Congress,  under  the  old  Federal 
Constitution  or  Articles  of  Confederation,  "  had  no  power  to 
act  on  individuals."  This  is  not  true  ;  for  it  had  power  to  act 
on  individuals  in  certain  cases,  as  may  be  seen,  Article  IX. 

He  says,  moreover,  that  under  it  (the  old  Constitution), 
"No  insurrections  could  be  suppressed."  Under  it,  SHAY'S 
insurrection  was  suppressed.  What  other  insurrection  was 
there? 


336  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

He  also  says,  "  The  same  power  which  established  the  Con 
stitution  may  justly  destroy  it,"  namely,  a  "  national  conven 
tion,  and  then,  the  people  voting  in  their  primary  assemblies." 
This  is  not  a  full  or  fair  statement,  coming,  as  it  does,  from  one 
who,  throughout  the  letter,  magnifies  the  powers  of  the  Federal 
Government,  and  underrates  the  reserved  rights  of  the  States. 
The  true  account  of  the  matter  is,  that  after  the  action  of  two 
thirds  of  the  States,  and  the  necessary  action  of  Congress  conse 
quent  upon  it,  or  the  action  of  two  thirds  of  both  Houses  of 
Congress,  the  States,  either  in  State  Conventions  or  in  State 
Legislatures,  have  power  to  alter  or  "  destroy  the  Constitu 
tion."  The  States  created  the  Constitution  and  can  "  destroy 
it." 

Mr.  MOTLEY  says  the  President  "  knows  nothing  of  States." 
And  yet  the  States,  by  the  Constitution,  elect  him  to  office,  not 
the  people,  and  by  the  same  Constitution  he  is  Commander-in- 
Chief  "  of  the  militia  of  the  several  States  when  called  into  the 
actual  service  of  the  United  States."  And  yet,  forsooth,-  the 
President  knows  nothing  of  the  States  ! 

He  says  the  Constitution  "'talked  not  of  sovereign  States." 
Neither  does  it  talk  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  United  States. 
The  true  and  the  fair  statement  is,  that  the  States  delegated  to 
the  United  States  the  power  to  exercise  sovereignty  over  certain 
subjects,  and  retain  their  sovereignty  over  all  besides.  The 
Constitution  and  the  laws  in  pursuance  thereof  are  the  supreme 
law  of  the  land  ;  and  the  laws  of  the  State  in  pursuance  of  its 
own  Constitution,  are  the  supreme  law  of  the  State,  so  far  as  the 
reserved  rights  of  the  States  extend.  The  United  States  cannot, 
without  usurpation,  take  from  the  States  severally  their  reserved 
rights,  but  the  States  can  take  from  the  United  States  the  dele 
gated  powers.  Thus  the  States,  in  the  language  of  the  old 
logicians,  are  sovereign  in  esse  as  to  the  reserved  rights,  and 
sovereign  in  posse  as  to  the  delegated  powers. 

In  this  way  I  might  go  on  to  show  the  errors  which  pre 
dominate  in  the  letter,  the  many  cases  of  false  assertions,  and 
also  of  the  'suggestio  falsi,  and  of  the  suppressio  veri.  He  has 
successfully  sought  for  the  graces  of  style,  but  he  should  have 
remembered  that  the  reigning  beauty,  the  prima  venus,  in 
history,  is  truth.  I  am  aware  that  he  can  plead  the  authority 


PEKVERSION    OF   THE    FEDERAL    CONSTITUTION.  337 

of  Dr.  SAMUEL  JOHNSON,  in  defence  of  arbitrary  power,  in  his 
"  Taxation  no  Tyranny  ;  "  both  had  their  reward  from  their 
respective  Governments,  though  Mr.  MOTLEY'S  was  much  the 
largest,  if  regard  be  had  to  the  merit  of  the  two  performances. 

From  such  writers  as  Mr.  MOTLEY,  and  others  who  attempted 
to  be  more  profound,  certain  editors  and  politicians,  like  parrots, 
caught  up  certain  phrases,  and,  for  a  time,  turned  the  attention 
of  the  people  from  the  words  of  truth  and  soberness  to  deeds 
of  usurpation  and  blood.  They  were  taught  that  the  Federal 
Constitution,  as  hitherto  understood,  was  to  be  set  aside,  in  its 
practical  application,  and  that  it  means  any  thing  that  the  ex 
igencies  of  the  country,  in  the  opinion  of  the  President  and 
Congress,  require  it  to  mean,  thus  allowing  them  to  be  despots. 

The  people,  by  such  sophistry,  felt  released  from  their 
obligations,  and  were  prepared  to  yield  to  their  passions  that 
obedience  which  they  ought  to  yield  to  the  Federal  Constitu 
tion.  Had  this  state  of  things  existed  in  classic  lands,  their 
writers  would  have  declared  that  the  fabled  daughters  of  Night 
and  Acheron,  the  Eumenides,  the  three  Furies,  careering  through 
the  air,  had  each  breathed  into  the  ears  and  the  souls  of  multi 
tudes  the  malignity  of  their  own  fierce  natures,  inspiring  them, 
the  one,  with  revenge,  the  second  with  avarice,  the  third  with 
lust.  Thus  inspired,  they  laughed  to  scorn  the  provisions  of 
the  Federal  Constitution,  which  protect  personal  and  private 
rights.  Their  language  was,  "  Constitution  or  no  Constitution, 
we  are  going  to  hunt  out  and  punish  traitors  in  the  North." 
And  seizing  the  torch  and  the  chains  of  those  three  furies,  they 
hurried  over  the  land  to  discover  and  arrest  and  imprison  sus 
pected  persons,  who  were  entirely  innocent,  against  whom  110 
charges  were  preferred.  "  The  little  bell "  tinkled  at  Wash 
ington  ;  the  order  clicked  along  the  wires  of  the  telegraph ; 
spies  and  detectives,  armed  with  arbitrary  orders  and  revolvers, 
prostrating  law  and  the  constituted  authorities,  ruled  lords  para 
mount  ;  but  paying  then-  homage  to  the  Throne  in  "Washington. 


FEDERAL  USURPATION. — FREEDOM  OF  SPEECH  ABRIDGED. 

The  Federal  Constitution  declares,  that  Congress  shall  make 


338  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

no  law  "  abridging  freedom  of  speech."  Yet  Mr.  LINCOLN, 
who  had  sworn  to  support  the  Constitution,  by  his  minions 
arrested  men  who  had  violated  no  law,  but  only  expressed 
themselves  in  opposition  to  his  policy.  What  does  he,  who  has 
been  called  "  the  expounder  of  the  Constitution,"  say  about 
freedom  of  speech  f 

"  It  is  the  ancient  and  undoubted  prerogative  of  the  people 
to  canvass  public  measures,  and  the  merits  of  public  men.  It 
is  a  home-bred  right,  a  fireside  privilege.  It  has  been  enjoyed 
in  every  house,  cottage,  and  cabin  of  the  nation.  It  is  as  un 
doubted  as  the  right  of  breathing  the  air  or  walking  on  the 
earth.  Belonging  as  it  does  to  private  life  as  a  right,  it  belongs 
to  public  life  as  a  duty ;  and  it  is  the  last  duty  which  those, 
whose  representatives  we  are,  shall  find  us  to  abandon.  Aim 
ing  at  all  times  to  be  courteous  and  temperate  in  its  use,  except 
where  the  right  itself  is  questioned,  we  shall  place  ourselves  on 
the  extreme  boundary  of  our  own  right,  and  bid  defiance  to 
any  arm  that  would  move  us  from  our  ground.  This  high  Con 
stitutional  privilege  we  shall  defend  and  exercise  in  all  places, 
in  time  of  peace,  in  time  of  war,  and  at  all  times.  Living,  we 
will  assert  it ;  and,  should  we  leave  no  other  inheritance  to  our 
children,  by  the  blessing  of  God  we  will  leave  them  the  inherit 
ance  of  free  principles,  and  the  example  of  a  manly  and  inde 
pendent  and  constitutional  defence  of  them." 

In  violation  of  this  right,  the  Administration,  directly  or 
indirectly,  encouraged  detectives,  spies,  and  informers,  through 
whose  agency  men  were  thrown  into  prison,  and  brought  before 
military  courts,  only  for  criticising  the  policy  of  the  Adminis 
tration,  or  the  conduct  of  some  of  its  employees.  The  case  of 
this  kind  that  attracted  special  notice,  was  that  of  CLEMENT  L. 
YALLANDIGHAM.  He  was  an  able  lawyer  in  Dayton,  Ohio ; 
was  a  leading  Member  of  Congress,  an  eloquent  speaker,  and 
was  candidate  for  the  office  of  Governor  of  Ohio.  This  emi 
nent  citizen  was  taken  from  his  house  by  armed  soldiers  ;  was, 
in  violation  of  the  Constitution,  tried  by  a  court  martial, 
"  though  he  did  not  belong  to  the  land  or  naval  forces,  nor  to 
the  militia  in  active  service ; "  was,  by  caprice  or  petty  spite, 
varnished  over  with  "  loyalty,"  sentenced  "  to  be  placed  in 
close  confinement  in  some  fortress  of  the  United  States."  This 


FEDERAL   USURPATION. — FREEDOM   OF   SPEECH   ABRIDGED.      339 

sentence  was  changed  by  the  jocose  President  into  banishment 
into  Confederate  territory.  This  outrage  created  great  indig 
nation  among  intelligent,  right-minded,  law-abiding  people, 
though  it  was  approved  by  the  advocates  of  military  despotism. 
A  meeting  was  held  in  Albany,  May  16,  1863,  which  adopt 
ed  resolutions,  that  were  sent  to  Mr.  LINCOLN  ;  also,  resolutions 
were  adopted  by  the  Democratic  State  Convention  of  Ohio,  and 
sent  to  Mr.  LINCOLN,  which  are  quoted  below.  In  those  resolu 
tions  they  declare  that  there  was,  in  his  trial  and  banishment,  a 
palpable  violation  of  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States. 

1.  "  Congress  shall  make  no  law  abridging  the  freedom  of 
speech  or  of  the  press,  or  of  the  right  of  the  people  peaceably 
to  assemble  and  petition  the  Government  for  redress  of  griev 
ances." 

2.  "  The  right  of  the  people  to  be  secure  in  their  persons, 
houses,  papers,  and  effects,  against  unreasonable  searches  and 
seizures,  shall  not  be  violated  ;  and  no  warrants  shall  issue  but 
upon   probable   cause,  supported  by  oath  or  affirmation,  and 
particularly  describing  the  place  to  be  searched,  and  the  per 
sons  and  things  to  be  seized." 

3.  a  jNo  person  shall  be  held  to  answer  for  a  capital  or 
otherwise  infamous  crime,  unless  on  presentment  or  indictment 
of  a  grand  jury,  except  in  cases  arising  in  the  land  and  naval 
forces,  or  in  the  militia  when  in  actual  service,  in  time  of  war 
or  public  danger." 

4.  "  In  all  cases  of  criminal  prosecutions,  the  accused  shall 
enjoy  the  right  to  a  speedy  public  trial  by  an  impartial  jury  of 
the  State  and  district  wherein  the  crime  shall  have  been  com 
mitted,  which  district  shall  have  been  previously  ascertained  by 
law." 

"  And  we  furthermore  denounce  said  arrest,  trial,  and  ban 
ishment,  as  a  direct  insult  offered  to  the  sovereignty  of  the 
people  of  Ohio,  by  whose  organic  law  it  is  declared  that  no 
person  shall  be  transported  out  of  the  State  for  any  offence 
committed  against  the  same." 

And  how  does  President  LINCOLN  reply  to  these  two  com 
munications  from  Albany  and  Ohio  ?  He  replies  in  two  letters, 
not  as  a  statesman,  not  as  a  Constitutional  lawyer,  but  just  as 


340  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

if  he  must  say  something,  and  knew  not  what  to  say.  "What 
he  says  is  chiefly  made  up  of  what  the  dictionary  calls  "  twad 
dle,"  which  is  defined  as  "  silly  talk." 

The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  since  decided 
that  such  military  arrests,  and  trials,  and  punishments,  are  un 
constitutional.  If  Mr.  LINCOLN  did  not  know  this  before,  he 
was  an  ignorant  man.  If  he  did  know  it  before,  and  still  did 
the  act,  directly  or  indirectly,  he  was  a  perjured  man,  and  a 
tyrant. 

At  that  military  trial,  what  was  the  pretended  crime  of 
which  Mr.  VALLANDIGHAM  was  guilty  ?  Why,  forsooth,  that  he 
had  violated  Order  38  of  General  BURNSIDE,  the  hero  of  Fred- 
ericksburg  !  This  arbitrary  order  abridged  freedom  of  speech. 

Mr.  YALLANDIGHAM'S  opinions  as  to  his  rights  come  out  to 
his  honor,  as  gold  tried  in  the  furnace  ;  Mr.  LINCOLN'S  opinions 
come  out  as  dross,  to  his  disgrace. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  PRESS  ABRIDGED. 

That  portion  of  the  Constitution  which  guarantees  the  "  free 
dom  of  the  press  "  has  already  been  quoted.  That  freedom  had 
always  been  enjoyed  ever  since  the  adoption  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  and  before,  in  peace  and  war,  and  at  all  times,  as  a  right 
to  which  a  free  people  are  entitled,  and  as  indispensable  to  the 
existence  of  free  institutions.  Editors  and  writers  generally 
have  felt  justified  in  discussing  and  criticising  the  measures  of 
Government  freely,  and  in  advocating  such  measures  as  they 
believe  would  be  conducive  to  the  common  weal.  Contrary 
to  this  provision  of  the  Constitution,  this  "  freedom  of  the  press  " 
was  abridged  in  a  multitude  of  cases. 

August  16,  1861,  the  Grand  Jury  in  the  city  of  New  York 
presented,  in  the  Circuit  Court  in  the  city  of  New  York,  the 
Journal  of  Commerce,  the  Daily  News,  the  Day-Book,  the 
Freeman's  Journal,  papers  published  in  New  York,  and  the 
Eagle,  a  paper  published  in  Brooklyn,  on  the  charge  that  they 
were  aiders  and  abettors  of  treason.  "  The  conduct  of  these 
disloyal  papers,"  they  say,  "  is  of  course  condemned  and  ab 
horred  by  all  loyal  men ;  but  the  Grand  Jury  will  be  glad  to 


FREEDOM   OF   THE   PEESS   ABRIDGED.  341 

learn  from  the  Court  that  it  is  also  subject  to  indictment  and 
condign  punishment." 

If  this  jury  were  men  of  common  intelligence,  they  knew 
already  that  these  presses  were  not  "  subject  to  indictment  and 
condign  punishment."  Why  hypocritically  pretend  ignorance  \ 
The  duty  of  the  Grand  Jury  is  to  inquire  into  crimes  and 
offences  against  the  laws  of  the  State  or  of  the  United  States. 
This  jury  knew,  if  they  were  men  of  common  intelligence,  that 
there  was  no  law  of  the  United  States  against  these  presses 
doing  in  substance  the  very  same  thing  that  they  themselves 
did,  in  publishing  the  views  that  they  did  publish  in  this  pre 
sentment.  And  if  they  were  not  men  of  common  intelligence, 
they  could  have  obtained  the  necessary  information  from  the 
District  Attorney.  The  truth  seems  to  be,  that  they,  from 
political  motives,  were  disposed  to  magnify  their  office  beyond 
its  legitimate  boundaries,  and,  by  an  appeal  to  popular  feeling, 
to  widen  and  deepen  the  abhorrence  of  which  they  speak 
against  men  as  patriotic  as  themselves.  It  is  not  known  to  the 
author  that  the  Court  gave  them  information  on  the  subject. 

On  the  22d  of  August,  1861,  six  days  after  the  present 
ment  of  the  Grand  Jury,  the  Postmaster-General,  MONTGOMERY 
BLAIR,  in  his  disloyalty  to  the  Federal  Constitution,  by  an 
arbitrary  act,  directed  the  postmaster  of  the  city  of  New  York 
to  receive  into  the  mail  none  of  the  papers  thus  presented  by 
this  officious  Grand  Jury  of  New  York,  "  as  dangerous  from 
their  disloyalty." 

May  19,  1864,  the  Secretary  of  War,  Mr.  STANTON,  with  his 
well-known  disregard  of  law  and  right,  acting  on  bis  own 
authority,  or  that  of  the  President,  ordered  the  soldiery  in  New 
York  to  seize  the  offices  of  the  New  York  Journal  of  Com 
merce  and  of  the  New  York  World,  and  hold  them,  and  also  to 
put  the  editors  in  a  military  prison.  Acordingly,  these  military 
men  obeyed  the  order  in  regard  to  the  offices,  and  held  them 
several  days  ;  but  the  order  to  imprison  the  editors  was  so  out 
rageous,  that  it  was  not  executed. 

The  pretence  on  this  occasion  upon  which  this  was  done, 
may  be  understood  by  the  following  letter  from  Governor 
HORATIO  SEYMOUR.  (These  editors  had  innocently  published  a 
hoax  on  the  President.) 


342  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVEESY. 

"  To  A.  OAKEY  HALL,  District  Attorney  for  the  County  of 
New  York: 

"  SIK  :  I  am  advised  that,  on  the  19th  instant,  the  office  of 
the  New  York  Journal  of  Commerce,  and  that  of  the  New 
York  World,  were  entered  by  armed  men,  the  property  of  the 
owners  seized,  and  the  premises  held  by  force  for  several  days. 
It  is  charged  that  these  acts  of  violence  were  done  without  due 
legal  process,  and  without  the  sanction  of  State  or  National 
authority.  If  this  be  true,  the  offenders  must  be  punished. 
.  .  .  Unless  all  are  made  secure  in  their  rights  of  person  and 
property,  no  one  can  be  protected.  If  the  owners  of  the  above- 
named  journals  have  violated  State  or  National  laws,  they 
must  be  proceeded  against  and  punished  by  those  laws.  Any 
action  against  them  outside  of  legal  proceedings  is  criminal. 
At  this  time  of  civil  war  and  disorder,  the  majesty  of  the  law 
must  be  upheld,  or  society  will  sink  into  anarchy. 

"  I  call  upon  you  to  look  into  the  facts  connected  with  the 
seizure  of  the  Journal  of  Commerce  and  the  New  York  World. 
If  these  acts  were  illegal,  the  offenders  must  be  punished.  In 
making  these  inquiries,  and  in  prosecuting  the  parties  impli 
cated,  you  will  call  upon  the  sheriff  of  the  county,  and  the 
heads  of  the  police  department,  for  any  needed  force  or  assist 
ance.  The  failure  to  give  this,  by  any  official  under  my  con 
trol,  will  be  deemed  a  sufficient  cause  for  his  removal." 

The  following  is  a  part  of  Judge  RUSSELL'S  charge  to  the 
jury  in  regard  to  this  matter  : 

"  The  first  part  of  the  order  (relating  to  the  imprisonment 
of  the  editors)  was  never  fully  executed.  The  latter  part  was, 
and  the  forcible  possession  maintained  several  days.  The  au 
thor  of  the  fraud,  it  is  said,  has  been  discovered,  and  the  news 
papers  in  question  have  been  exonerated  from  all  suspicion  of 
guilt  or  blame.  If  this  be  so,  this  is  an  instance  of  innocent 
men  being  summarily  interfered  with,  or  trespassed  upon,  in 
the  sanctity  of  their  persons  and  property.  As  such,  it  is  a 
violation  of  both  the  Federal  and  the  State  Constitutions,  and 
it  is  your  duty  to  examine  into  it." 

The  jury,  thus  charged,  refused  to  examine  into  the  subject, 
m  violation  of  their  duty,  and  their  oaths  !  After  a  few  clays, 


UNCONSTITUTIONAL   EMANCIPATION.  343 

the  papers  were  allowed  to  be  published ;  but  without  any 
apology  or  remuneration  to  the  editors  who  were  injured  in 
their  property  and  personal  rights.  Each  of  them  spoke  from 
the  press,  in  a  voice  that  must  have  made  the  ears  of  the  Presi 
dent  and  of  his  minions  tingle,  unless  they  were  "  like  the  deaf 
adder  that  stoppeth  her  ear." 

While  high  officials,  in  violation  of  their  oaths,  were  abridg 
ing  the  "  freedom  of  the  press,"  rnobs  were  excited  to  do  the 
same.  On  the  24th  of  August,  1861,  a  body  of  men  went  from 
Bridgeport,  ten  miles  to  Stepney,  in  the  town  of  Monroe,  and 
by  violence  dispersed  a  peace-meeting,  took  possession  of  the 
platform  erected  for  the  occasion,  appointed  ELIAS  HOWE  for 
chairman,  and  P.  T.  BAKNUM,  the  showman,  secretary.  Hav 
ing  passed  certain  denunciatory  resolutions,  they  returned  to 
Bridgeport,  bearing  in  triumph  the  peace-flag.  Here,  between 
sundown  and  dark,  after  listening  to  an  harangue  by  the  said 
BARNUM,  in  front  of  the  Sterling  House,  they  went  to  the  print 
ing  office  of  the  Bridgeport  Farmer,  smashed  in  the  doors, 
broke  to  pieces  what  they  could  find  in  the  establishment — a 
three-story  building — threw  out  of  the  window  presses,  types, 
cases,  fixtures,  paper,  &c. 

All  this  was  done  in  the  presence  of  two  or  three  thousand 
people,  and  no  effort  was  made  to  stop  the  work  of  destruction. 
The  Mayor  and  police  found  it  convenient  to  be  out  of  the 
way  until  the  miscreants  had  accomplished  their  work.  These 
shameful  outrages,  be  it  remembered,  were  committed  in  the 
respectable  city  of  Bridgeport,  in  the  land  of  steady  habits, 
where  the  people  profess  to  live  under  a  Government  of  laws. 

These  are  but  specimens  of  the  spirit  of  anarchy  and  mob 
rule,  and  Executive  misrule,  which  disgraced  the  dominant 
party. 

UNCONSTITUTIONAL   EMANCIPATION. 

On  September  22d,  1862,  President  LINCOLN  issued  a  procla 
mation,  prospective  in  its  operation,  namely:  "That  on  the  first 
day  of  January,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  sixty-three,  all  persons  held  as  slaves  within  any 
State,  or  designated  part  of  a  State,  the  people  whereof  shall 
23 


344:  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

then  be  in  rebellion  against  the  United  States,  shall  be  then, 
thenceforward,  and  forever  free ;  and  the  Executive  Govern 
ment  of  the  United  States,  including  the  military  and  naval 
authorities  thereof,  will  recognize  and  maintain  the  freedom  of 
such  persons,  and  will  do  no  act  or  acts  to  repress  such  persons, 
or  any  of  them,  in  any  efforts  they  make  for  their  actual  free 
dom. 

"That  the  Executive  will,  on  the  first  day  of  January  afore 
said,  by  proclamation,  designate  the  States,  or  parts  of  States, 
if  any,  in  which  the  people  thereof  respectively  shall  then  be 
in  rebellion  against  the  United  States ;  and  the  fact  that  any 
State,  or  the  people  thereof,  shall  on  that  day  be  in  good  faith 
represented  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  by  members 
chosen  thereto,  at  an  election  wherein  the  qualified  voters  shall 
have  participated,  shall,  in  the  absence  of  strong  countervailing 
testimony,  be  deemed  conclusive  evidence  that  such  State,  and 
the  people  thereof,  are  not  in  rebellion  against  the  United 
States." 

As  none  of  the  States,  or  portions  of  the  States  referred  to, 
adopted  the  terms  dictated  by  the  President,  he,  on  the  1st  of 
January,  1863,  issued  a  proclamation  containing  the  following : 
"  And  by  virtue  of  the  power  and  for  the  purpose  aforesaid,  I 
do  order  and  declare  that  all  persons  held  as  slaves  within  said 
designated  States,  and  parts  of  States,  are,  and  henceforth  shall 
be,  free ;  and  that  the  Executive  Government  of  the  United 
States,  including  the  military  and  naval  authorities  thereof, 
will  recognize  and  maintain  the  freedom  of  such  persons." 

On  the  11  th  of  December,  1862,  before  the  issue  of  the 
threatened  proclamation,  Mr.  YEAMAN,  of  Kentucky,  in  the 
House,  brought  in  a  resolution  that  the  proclamation  of  the 
22d  of  September  was  not  constitutional,-  and  was  inexpedient ; 
which  was  laid  on  the  table  by  the  majority.  On  the  15th  of 
the  same  month,  Mr.  S.  C.  FESSENDEN,  of  Maine,  brought  for 
ward  resolutions  that  the  said  proclamation  was  constitutional 
and  expedient.  These  resolutions  were  passed.  It  is  remark 
able  that  in  both  cases  no  debate  was  allowed  by  the  majority  ! 
There  is  a  "  tyranny  aggregate,  as  well  as  a  tyranny  sole." 
For  a  time.  Congress  and  the  President  were  competitors  for 
the  prize  in  the  race  of  despotism. 


UNCONSTITUTIONAL   EMANCIPATION.  345 

It  is  very  remarkable  that  this  unconstitutional  assumption 
of  despotic  power  should  be  attempted  by  Mr.  LINCOLN,  who, 
in  his  inaugural  address  on  the  4th  of  March,  1861,  declared : 
"  I  have  no  purpose,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  interfere  with  the 
institution  of  slavery  in  the  States  where  it  exists.  I  believe  I 
have  no  right  to  do  so,  and  I  have  no  inclination  to  do  so." 
He  also,  in  his  interview  with  the  deputation  from  the  religious 
denominations  in  Chicago,  used  the  following  language :  "  What 
good  would  a  proclamation  of  emancipation  from  me  do,  espe 
cially  as  we  are  now  situated  ?  I  do  not  want  to  issue  a  docu 
ment  that  the  whole  world  will  see  must  be  necessarily  inopera 
tive,  like  the  Pope's  bull  against  the  comet." 

That  the  proclamation  of  the  President  was  unconstitu 
tional,  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  the  President  and  his  party 
of  despotism  found  it  necessary  to  change  the  Constitution  ~by  a 
vote  of  three  fourths  of  the  States  in  order  to  make  emancipa 
tion  of  the  slaves  valid. 

As  a  lame  apology  for  Mr.  LINCOLN,  it  may  be  that  he  did  it 
under  u  pressure,"  to  use  his  own  expression ;  or,  to  use  the 
expression  of  his  friend,  Mr.  RICHARDSON,  in  the  Plouse,  August 
1,  1861 :  "  I  am  afraid  that  he  has  not  the  will  to  stand  up 
against  the  wily  politicians  who  surround  him,  and  knead  him 
to  their  purposes" 

Mr.  LINCOLN,  in  the  proclamation,  calls  himself  "  THE  EX 
ECUTIVE  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES."  Who  made  him 
the  Government  ?  He  also  speaks  of  "  the  military  and  naval 
authority."  The  army  and  navy  are  the  mere  agencies  of  the 
civil  authority,  but  are  no  authority  themselves.  The  whole 
proclamation  is  but  the  language  of  usurpation,  the  language 
of  a  despot.  A  proclamation  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States  may  declare  what  the  law  is,  but  it  cannot  make  law. 
He  deceived  multitudes  into  the  support  of  an  abolition  war, 
and,  after  he  had  strongly  committed  them  by  contributions  of 
men  and  money  and  votes,  cast  off  the  mask  in  which  he  had 
played  the  juggler's  part.  And  in  justification  of  Mr.  LINCOLN 
acting  a  double  part,  some  of  the  radical  abolitionists  attributed 
the  success  of  the  Federal  armies  to  the  negro  soldiers  obtained 
by  emancipation  ;  as  if  the  white  soldiers  of  the  North  were 
inferior  to  the  soldiers  of  the  Confederate  States.  The  wor- 


346  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

shipped  negro  was  represented  by  some  of  his  votaries  as  supe 
rior  in  soldierly  qualities  to  the  whites. 


UNCONSTITUTIONAL    LEGAL-TENDER   BILL. 

There  is  no  power  delegated  in  the  Federal  Constitution  to 
"  emit  bills  of  credit,"  and  make  them  "  legal  tenders."  A 
proposition  was  made  in  the  Federal  Convention  to  delegate 
that  power,  and  it  was  voted  down  by  nine  States  voting  aye 
and  two  States  voting  nay.  The  country  had  suffered  enough 
by  "  continental  money  and  legal  tenders,"  and  the  States  re 
fused  to  delegate  the  power.  HAMILTON  declares  that  Con 
gress  have  not  the  power.  WEBSTER  says :  "  No  State — not 
even  Congress  itself — can  make  any  thing  a  tender  but  gold 
and  silver  in  the  payment  of  debts."  CALHOUN  takes  the  same 
ground. 

On  February  6,  1862,  the  House  voted  to  authorize  the 
issue  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  million  dollars  of  Treasury 
notes,  "  which  shall  be  lawful  money,  and  a  legal  tender  in  the 
payment  of  public  and  private  debts  within  the  United  States." 
The  bill  in  which  this  was  included  became  a  law  by  the  vote 
of  the  Senate  and  the  signature  of  the  President. 

Of  this  law,  Judge  GRIER,  of  the  United  States  Court, 
says  :  "  As  this  is  the  first  act  in  which  this  high  prerogative  of 
sovereignty  has  been  exercised  (by  the  Federal  Legislature),  it 
should  be  construed  strictly.  It  is  doubtful  in  policy,  and  dan 
gerous  as  a  precedent."  Thus  a  political  party,  that  for  years 
had  shown  but  little  regard  for  the  constitutional  rights  of  the 
Southern  States,  by  the  legal-tender  act,  as  by  other  acts, 
showed  they  had  no  regard  for  the  Constitution  itself. 


THE  UNCONSTITUTIONAL  CONSCRIPTION  BILL. — DECISION  OF  JUDGE 
G.  W.  WOODWARD  IN  RESPECT  TO  THE  CONSCRIPTION  ACT  OF 
MARCH  3,  1863. 

1.  "  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  recognizes  only 
two  sorts  of  military  land  forces,  viz.,  '  the  militia,'  and  the 
<  regular  or  standing  army.' 


THE    UNCONSTITUTIONAL    CONSCEIPTION   BILL.  347 

2.  "  The  Conscription  Act  of  March  3,  1863,  is  not  founded 
on  that  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  provides  for  calling 
forth  the  militia,  because  the  persons  drafted  under  the  act  are 
not  to  be  armed,  organized,  and  disciplined  under  the  militia 
law,  nor  are  they  called  forth  under  State  officers,  as  required 
by  the  Constitution. 

3.  "  There  is  no  power  given  to  recruit  the  regular  army  by 
forced  levies.     This  can  only  be  done  by  voluntary  enlistments. 

4.  "  The  mode  of  *  raising  armies  '  by  forced  recruiting,  for 
the  suppression  of  rebellion  or  insurrection,  is  not  authorized 
by  the  Constitution,  because  such  cases  are  expressly  provided 
for  by  the  power  therein  given  for  calling  out  the  dormant 
forces,  or  militia. 

5.  "  The  Constitution  authorizes  c  levies  of  the  militia  of 
the  States '  in  its  organized  form  in  cases  of  rebellion  and  inva 
sion,  but  in  no  other  case  or  mode  than  is  therein  provided. 

6.  "  The  mode  of  coercion  provided  for  this  purpose  by  the 
Act  of  March  3,  1862,  is  unconstitutional,  because 

(1).  "  It  is  incompatible  with  the  provisions  of  the  Constitu 
tion  relative  to  the  militia. 

(2.)  "  It  exhausts  the  militia  force  of  the  several  States, 
which  existed  as  an  institution  before  the  formation  of  the  Fed 
eral  Government,  and  was  not  only  not  granted  away,  but  ex 
pressly  reserved  at  the  formation  of  the  Constitution ;  annuls 
the  remedy  for  insurrection  expressly  provided  by  the  Consti 
tution,  and  substitutes  a  new  one  not  therein  provided  for  ;  and 
converts  into  National  forces,  as  part  of  the  regular  army  of 
the  General  Government,  the  whole  militia  force  of  the  States, 
not  on  the  contingency  therein  provided  for,  nor  in  the  form 
therein  prescribed,  but  entirely  irrespective  thereof. 

(3.)  "  It  incorporates  into  this  new  National  force  every  civil 
officer  of  the  State  except  the  Governor,  and  every  officer  of  its 
social  institutions  and  military  organization  within  the  pre 
scribed  age ;  thus  subjecting  the  civil,  social,  and  military 
organizations  of  the  State  to  the  Federal  power  to  raise  armies. 

(4).  "  It  provides  for  a  thorough  fusion  of  the  army  and 
militia — two  forces  which  are  kept  distinct  by  the  Constitution 
— by  investing  the  President  with  power  to  assign  the  soldiers 
obtained  by  the  draft  to  any  corps,  regiment,  or  branch  of  ser 
vice,  at  his  pleasure. 


348  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

(5.)  "  It  subjects  the  citizen  to  the  rules  and  articles  of  war 
before  he  is  in  f  actual  service,'  and  proposes  to  effect  this  pur 
pose  by  merely  drawing  his  name  from  a  wheel,  and  serving 
notice  of  that  fact  upon  him. 

"  The  great  vice  of  the  Conscript  Law  is,  that  it  is  founded 
on  an  assumption  that  Congress  may  take  away,  not  the  State 
rights  of  the  citizen,  but  the  security  and  foundation  of  his 
State  rights.  And  how  long  is  civil  liberty  expected  to  last, 
after  the  securities  of  civil  liberty  are  destroyed  ?  The  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States  committed  the  liberty  of  the  citizen 
in  part  to  the  Federal  Government,  but  expressly  reserved  to 
the  States  and  the  people  all  that  it  did  not  delegate.  It  gave 
to  the  General  Government  a  standing  army,  but  it  left  to  the 
States  their  militia.  Its  purpose  in  all  this  balancing  of  powers 
was  wise  and  good  ;  but  this  legislation  disregards  these  distinc 
tions,  and  upturns  the  whole  system  of  the  Government,  when 
it  converts  the  State  militia  into  National  forces,  and  claims  to 
use  and  govern  them  as  such." 

A  bill  of  a  like  character  was  brought  into  Congress  in  the 
war  of  1812,  designed  to  take  from  the  States  their  rights  over 
the  milita,  reserved  to  them  in  the  Federal  Constitution.  But 
it  was  opposed  by  some  of  the  ablest  men  in  Congress,  among 
whom  was  Judge  DAGGET,  afterwards  Chief-Justice  of  Con 
necticut,  on  substantially  the  same  ground  as  that  taken  by 
Judge  WOODWARD  ;  and  the  bill  failed  to  pass. 


ARBITRARY    ARRESTS    BY    ORDER    OF    PRESIDENT    LINCOLN. 

The  Constitution  provides  that  "  no  person  shall  be  deprived 
of  life,  liberty,  or  property,  without  due  process  of  law."  It 
declares  that  "  the  right  of  the  people  to  be  secure  in  their  per 
sons,  houses,  papers,  and  effects,  against  unreasonable  seizures, 
shall  not  be  violated,  and  no  warrants  shall  issue  but  upon 
probable  cause,  supported  by  oath  or  affirmation,  and  particu 
larly  describing  the  place  to  be  searched,  and  the  persons  and 
things  to  be  seized."  It  also  declares  that,  "in  all  criminal 
prosecutions,  the  accused  shall  enjoy  the  right  of  a  speedy  and 
public  trial  by  an  impartial  jury." 


ARBITRARY   ARRESTS   BY   ORDER   OF   PRESIDENT   LINCOLN.     349 

In  violation  of  these  provisions  of  the  Federal  Constitution, 
hundreds  of  men  were  seized  in  their  homes,  were  hurried  off 
to  another  State,  were  imprisoned  upon  bare  suspicion,  or  from 
malice  or  party  spirit,  by  some  swaggering  provost-marshal,  or 
some  creature  in  the  shape  of  an  army  officer,  acting  under 
authority  from  Mr.  LINCOLN.  They  were  kept  in  prisons  for 
weeks  and  months  and  years,  without  any  charges  being 
brought  against  them  ;  and  sometimes  dismissed  without  even 
having  been  informed  why  they  were  thus  abused  and  op 
pressed.  Even  members  of  the  Legislature  of  Maryland,  on 
then-  way  to  the  seat  of  the  Legislature,  were  arrested  without 
law,  and  imprisoned.  And  when,  in  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  a  resolution  was  brought  to  inquire  by  what  authority 
such  arrests  were  made,  a  majority  of  that  body,  recreant  to 
their  duty  as  sworn  defenders  of  civil  liberty  under  the  Consti 
tution,  opposed  the  resolution.  Thus  they  encouraged  des 
potism. 

The  following,  from  an  address  delivered  by  Hon.  GEORGE 
TICKNOR  CURTIS,  author  of  the  well-known  "  History  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,"  presents  the  true  view  of 
the  matter :  "  I  use  the  language  deliberately — I  affirm  that, 
when  the  Constitution  repeated  the  words  of  Magna  Charta, 
not  as  a  statute,  but  as  a  fixed  provision  of  fundamental  law, 
and  declared  that  '  no  person  shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty, 
and  property,  without  due  process  of  law,'  it  meant  to  make  a 
rule  for  all  time  and  all  circumstances,  shutting  the  door  for 
ever  against  any  supposed  public  necessity  for  violating  the 
rights  of  the  citizen.  In  like  manner,  I  affirm  that,  when  the 
Constitution  reserved  to  the  States  or  the  people  all  political 
powers  not  granted  to  the  Federal  Government,  it  meant  to 
preclude  every  ground  of  necessity  for  the  assumption  by  that 
Government  of  the  powers  thus  withheld."  He  adds,  in  a 
note :  "  It  is,  in  my  opinion,  a  monstrous  fallacy  to  suppose 
that  the  implied  authority  for  suspending  the  privilege  of  the 
writ  of  habeas  corpus  warrants  indefinitely  the  arrest  and  de 
tention  of  citizens,  without  judicial  process.  This  implied 
authority  was  given  in  the  original  Constitution.  But  after  the 
adoption  of  that  instrument,  the  people  came  forward  and 
annexed  to  it  the  prohibitions  of  Magna  Charta,  making  that 


350  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

provision  a  part  of  the  supreme  law.  The  two  clauses  of  the 
Constitution  must,  therefore,  be  so  construed  and  applied  as  not 
to  render  nugatory  the  one  last  adopted,  and  so  as  to  give  effect 
to  its  stringent  declarations." 

As  a  practical  comment  on  the  above,  Secretary  SEWARD,  it 
is  said,  in  a  conversation  with  Lord  LYONS  on  the  14th  of  Sep 
tember,  used  the  following  language :  "  I  can  touch  a  bell  on 
my  right  hand,  and  order  the  arrest  of  a  citizen  of  Ohio.  I 
can  touch  the  bell  again,  and  order  the  arrest  of  a  citizen  of 
New  York.  Can  Queen  Victoria  do  as  much  ? "  Here  we 
have  the  essence  of  despotism,  and  a  boast  of  it. 


REPEAL   OF   THE   FUGITIVE    SLAVE   LAWS. 

June  13,  1864,  the  House  passed  a  bill  repealing  the  Fugi 
tive  Slave  Law  passed  in  1793,  in  the  administration  of  WASH 
INGTON  ;  and  also  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  passed  in  1850,  in  the 
administration  of  FILLMORE.  This  bill  was  passed  in  the  Sen 
ate,  June  22,  1864.  'No  other  law  was  passed  to  carry  out  the 
provision  of  the  Constitution  in  regard  to  fugitive  slaves. 

This  act  of  Congress  justified  the  truth  of  the  charges 
brought  against  the  Northern  States,  namely,  that  they  were 
unwilling  to  carry  out  the  provision  of  the  Constitution  for  the 
benefit  of  the  Southern  States. 

On  June  9,  1864,  slavery  was,  by  the  vote  of  the  Senate, 
prohibited  in  the  territories  of  the  United  States  ;  and  on  June 
17,  the  House  concurred.  This  legislation  was  in  violation  of 
the  Federal  Constitution,  and  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States. 

The  following  extract  from  a  sermon  preached  in  opposition 
to  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  shows  the  spirit  that  prevailed  to  a 
considerable  extent  in  1850 :  "  In  conclusion,  therefore,  my 
application  of  the  subject  is :  Disobey  this  law.  If  you  have 
ever  dreamed  of  obeying  it,  repent  before  God,  and  ask  His 
forgiveness."  "  But  if  a  fugitive  claim  your  help  on  his  jour 
ney,  break  the  law  and  give  it  him."  "  Feed  him,  clothe  him, 
harbor  him  by  day  and  by  night,  and  conceal  him  from  his  pur 
suers,  and  the  officers  of  the  law."  This  sermon,  preached  by 


UNCONSTITUTIONAL   ACT  OF   INDEMNITY.  351 

Rev.  CHARLES  BEECHER,  Newark,  New  Jersey,  is  entitled,  "  The 
Duty  of  Disobedience  to  Wicked  Laws."  This  is  only  a  sam 
ple  of  the  stuff  then  in  the  market. 


UNCONSTITUTIONAL   ACT   OF   INDEMNITY,  PASSED   JANUARY  28,  1863. 

So  many  were  the  unconstitutional  acts  of  Mr.  LINCOLN, 
injuring  private  individuals,  that,  to  protect  him  and  his  agents 
against  suits  at  law,  to  which  they  were  exposed,  Congress 
passed  the  above-named  Indemnity  Act.  While  this  was  pend 
ing,  thirty-six  members  of  the  House  signed  a  protest  against 
the  Act,  a  portion  of  which  is  as  follows. 

They  protest  against  the  passage  of  the  bill : 

"  1.  Because  it  purports  to  deprive  the  citizen  of  all  exist 
ing,  peaceful,  legal  modes  of  redress  for  admitted  wrongs,  and 
thus  constrains  him  tamely  to  submit  to  the  injury  inflicted,  or 
to  seek  illegal  and  forcible  remedies. 

"  2.  Because  it  purports  to  indemnify  the  President,  and  all 
acting  under  his  authority,  for  acts  admitted  to  be  wrongful,  at 
the  expense  of  the  citizen  upon  whom  the  wrongful  acts  have 
been  perpetrated,  in  violation  of  the  plainest  principles  of  jus 
tice,  and  the  most  familiar  precepts  of  constitutional  law. 

"  3.  Because  it  purports  to  confirm  and  make  valid,  by  act 
of  Congress,  arrests  and  imprisonments  which  were  not  only 
not  warranted  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  but 
were  in  palpable  violation  of  its  express  prohibitions. 

"  4.  Because  it  purports  to  authorize  the  President,  during 
this  rebellion,  at  any  time,  as  to  any  person,  and  everywhere 
throughout  the  limits  of  the  United  States,  to  suspend  the 
privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  /  whereas,  by  the  Con 
stitution,  the  power  to  suspend  the  privilege  of  that  writ  is  con 
fided  to  the  discretion  of  Congress  alone,  and  is  limited  to  the 
place  threatened  by  the  dangers  of  invasion  or  insurrection." 


REMARKS. 

1.  SOVEREIGNTY  OF  THE  STATES. — SOVEREIGNTY,  is  the  right 
of  command.     It  is  the  correlative  of  Allegiance,  the  one  im- 


352  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

plying  the  other.  A  sovereign  State  is  one  that  is  indepen 
,dent,  and  has  the  right  of  command  in  its  own  territory,  and 
claims  the  allegiance  of  the  citizens. 

The  thirteen  colonies  were  allowed,  by  their  charters  or 
otherwise,  to  exercise  some  of  the  rights  of  sovereignty ;  still, 
though  practically  sovereign  to  a  large  extent,  they  were  not 
sovereign,  but  owed  allegiance  to  the  British  Crown,  as  having 
the  right  of  command. 

On  the  4th  of  July,  1776,  they,  in  conjunction,  made  the 
"  Unanimous  Declaration  of  the  Thirteen  States  of  America  in 
Congress  assembled,"  by  which  each  colony,  acting  by  itself 
and  for  itself,  declared  itself  a  "  free  and  independent  State." 

It  is  true  that  the  colony  of  New  Hampshire  had,  on  the 
5th  of  January,  1776,  virtually  declared  its  independence,  by 
adopting  a  constitution  providing  for  self-government,  and 
entire  independence  of  the  Crown.  South  Carolina,  March  26, 
1776,  did  substantially  the  same,  its  constitution  leaving  room 
for  reconciliation  with  the  mother  country.  Virginia,  on  the 
29th  of  June,  1776,  formed  a  constitution,  by  which  she  de 
clared  herself,  in  like  manner,  free  and  independent.  On  the 
2d  of  July,  New  Jersey  adopted  a  constitution.  Massachu 
setts,  April  1,  1776,  by  her  General  Court,  altered  the  style  of 
writs,  and  other  legal  processes,  by  substituting  "  the  people 
and  Government  of  Massachusetts,"  instead  of  "  George  the 
Third  ; "  thus  claiming  sovereignty  for  the  colony.  On  May  4, 
Rhode  Island  directed  that  the  oath  of  allegiance  be  taken  to 
the  colony ;  thus  asserting  her  sovereignty.  New  York,  on 
the  9th  of  July,  1776,  authorized  her  delegates  to  declare  the 
colony  a  free  and  independent  State ;  and  thus  asserted  her 
own  sovereignty.  Thus  each  State  asserted  its  own  indepen 
dence  in  its  own  time. 

A  letter  from  JOHN  ALSOP,  a  member  of  the  Continental 
Congress  from  New  York,  to  a  member  of  the  Assembly  in  that 
State,  puts  the  matter  in  its  true  light. 

PHILADELPHIA,  June  16,  1776. 

"  Yesterday,  our  President,  JOHN  HANCOCK,  read  in  Con- 


REMARKS.  353 

gress  a  resolve  of  your  honorable  body,  dated  the  9th,  in  which 
you  declare  New  York  a  free  and  independent  State." 

Thus  each  of  the  thirteen  colonies  became  a  free  and 
independent  State,  claiming  the  allegiance  of  its  citizens,  and 
armed  with  authority  to  punish  treason  against  itself;  six 
before  the  4th  of  July,  six  on  the  4th,  and  one  on  the  9th  of 
July. 

In  November,  1777,  a  FEDERAL  CONSTITUTION,  or  Articles  of 
Confederation,  was  proposed,  and  was  finally  adopted  March, 
1781 ;  so  that,  for  five  years  nearly,  each  of  the  States  was  sov 
ereign,  and  exercised  the  rights  of  sovereignty  in  the  fullest 
sense.  They  acted  in  conjunction  with  each  in  contributing 
men  and  supplies  for  the  army  ;  just  as  they  acted  in  conjunc 
tion  when  they  made  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  They 
were  called  United  States,  just  as  they  were  called  United 
Colonies  while  they  were  still  subject  to  the  mother  country, 
and  before  each  had  declared  itself  a  free  and  independent 
State.  There  was  unity  of  action  for  a  common  object,  by 
their  delegates  in  Congress ;  but  each  State  retained  its  sov 
ereignty. 

By  this  Federal  Constitution,  adopted  in  1781,  they  "  dele 
gated  "  to  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  the  power 
to  exercise  certain  rights  of  sovereignty  which  they  possessed ; 
that  is,  they  empowered  Congress,  as  their  agent,  to  act  for 
them  in  certain  matters ;  just  as  one  may  employ  an  agent  or 
attorney  to  act  for  him  in  certain  matters,  without  giving  him 
any  power  on  other  matters. 

"  Sovereignty  is  indivisible."  Sovereignty,  strictly  consid 
ered,  cannot  be  delegated  /  as  may  be  understood,  exvi  termini, 
from  the  very  meaning  of  the  term  "  delegate."  But  the 
power  to  exercise  certain  rights  of  sovereignty  can  be  delegated 
by  a  sovereign  State ;  while  that  State  retains  its  sovereignty. 
"  Delegated  "  power  can  be  resumed  at  the  will  of  the  con 
stituent.  Each  sovereign  State  was  the  constituent.  The 
United  States  was  the  delegate. 

Therefore,  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  nature  of  "  sov 
ereignty,"  and  with  the  nature  of  "  delegated  power,"  the 
legislatures  of  the  several  States,  representing  the  people  in 


354:  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTEOVEESY. 

those  several  States,  in  this  old  Federal  Constitution,  or  Articles 
of  Confederation,  in  which  they  delegate  the  power  to  exercise 
certain  rights  of  sovereignty,  placed  the  following  article : 
"  AETICLE  2.  Each  State  retains'  its  sovereignty,  freedom,  and 
independence,  and  every  power,  jurisdiction,  and  right  which 
is  not  by  this  confederation  expressly  delegated  to  the  United 
States  in  Congress  assembled." 

Thus  the  States  severally  delegated  to  the  United  States  in 
Congress  assembled  the  power  to  exercise  certain  rights  of  sov 
ereignty,  some  of  these  rights  being  of  a  high  character ;  while 
the  States  severally  retained  each  its  own  sovereignty.  "  Sov 
ereignty  can  be  abdicated,  or  surrendered,  but  it  cannot  be 
delegated."  Allegiance  was  still  due  to  the  States.  Treason, 
a  crime  against  sovereignty,  could  be  committed  only  against 
some  one  of  the  States. 

u  The  people "  are  mentioned  in  this  old  Constitution  as 
people  of  the  several  States  ;  just  as,  before  the  "  Declaration," 
"  the  people  "  were  not  the  people  of  the  colonies  in  the  aggre 
gate,  but  of  the  colonies  severally.  The  Government  of  Great 
Britain  was  one  power,  and  the  people  of  each  colony  was 
another  power.  The  colony  was  the  people,  as  afterwards  the 
State  was  the  people.  Sovereignty  resided  in  the  States  ;  that 
is,  in  the  people  of  the  State.  These  States  were  now  thirteen 
independent  republics,  thirteen  sovereign  nations,  but  united 
by  their  Federal  Constitution  in  certain  respects  and  for  certain 
definite  purposes  ;  so  that  the  United  States  in  Congress  assem 
bled  had  some  of  the  attributes  of  a  national  government,  and 
could  treat  with  foreign  nations,  as  the  agent  of  the  several 
States. 

Accordingly,  on  the  3d  of  November,  1783,  the  Federal 
Government  formed  a  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  in  which  the 
following  is  the  first  article  :  "  His  Britannic  Majesty  acknowl 
edges  the  United  States,  namely :  New  Hampshire,  Massachu 
setts  Bay,  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations,  Connecti 
cut,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Mary 
land,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and  Georgia, 

tO  be  FREE,  SOVEREIGN,   AND   INDEPENDENT    STATES  ;    and   that   for 

himself,  his  heirs  and  successors,  he  relinquishes  all  claim  to  the 


REMARKS.  355 

government,  property,  and  territorial  rights  of  the  same,  and 
every  part  thereof." 

They  had  claimed  to  be  "  sovereign  States  "  in  the  treaty  of 
alliance  or  compact  between  themselves,  and  now  they  were 
acknowledged,  by  those  who  knew  what  sovereignty  is — namely, 
the  British  ministry — to  be  SOVEREIGN  STATES.  They  had  dele 
gated  to  their  agent,  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled, 
the  power  to  exercise  certain  rights  of  sovereignty,  but  they 
were  sovereign  still ;  they  could  resume  the  exercise  of  those 
rights,  though  the  "  Articles  "  declared  that  the  union  formed 
by  it  was  to  be  "  perpetual."  This  Constitution,  or  Articles, 
contained  no  provision  for  amendment,  except  by  a  vote  of  all 
the  States. 

Some  of  the  States,  having  become  dissatisfied  with  this  old 
Federal  Constitution,  at  a  meeting  of  the  States  held  in  1787, 
a  new  Federal  Constitution  was  formed  by  them,  or  a  portion 
of  them,  was  adopted  by  a  portion  of  them  in  1788,  and  went 
into  operation  in  1789.  They  resumed  the  powers  delegated  in 
the  old  Federal  Constitution.  In  the  framing,  in  the  adopting, 
in  the  carrying  out,  by  the  organization  of  the  Government,  the 
States  are  the  only  actors.  Congress,  appointed  by  States,  and 
voting  by  States,  recommended  the  calling  of  a  Convention. 
The  members  of  the  Convention  were  appointed  by  States,  and 
the  voting  in  the  Convention  was  by  States.  The  new  Federal 
Constitution  framed  in  that  Convention  was  adopted  by  States 
— that  is,  by  the  people  of  the  several  States.  The  members 
of  Congress  under  the  new  Constitution,  thus  ratified,  were 
appointed  by  the  States,  each  State  determining  who  should  be 
voters.  The  Senate  was  appointed  by  the  States,  namely,  by  a 
vote  of  the  several  legislatures.  The  President  was  appointed 
by  the  States,  each  State  voting  only  for  electors.  If  the  electors 
failed  to  make  choice  of  a  President,  the  House  in  Congress 
makes  the  appointment,  Congress  voting  by  States.  Thus  the 
sovereign  States  delegated  powers  to  a  new  agent. 

In  this  new  Federal  Constitution  the  States  delegated  more 
powers  to  the  Federal  Government  which  it  created  than  they 
did  in  the  old  Federal  Constitution,  and  reserved  fewer  powers 
to  themselves ;  yet,  in  one  important  respect,  they  reserved 


356  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

more  power  to  themselves  in  the  new  Constitution.  Three 
fourths  of  the  States  can  amend  or  abolish  the  new  or  present 
Federal  Constitution,  while  only  the  whole  number  of  States 
could  amend  that.  The  legislatures  or  conventions  of  three 
fourths  of  the  States  can  abolish  the  present  Federal  Constitu 
tion,  while  under  this  Constitution  the  United  States  have  no 
power  to  abolish  a  State  constitution.  They  can  dissolve  the 
union  or  confederacy,  but  the  confederacy  or  union  cannot  blot 
a  State  out  of  existence. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  see  what  is  the  full  meaning  of  the  * 
following  article  of  the  Constitution :  "  The  powers  not  dele 
gated  to  the  United  States  by  the  Constitution,  nor  prohibited 
by  it  to  the  States,  are  reserved  to  the  States  respectively,  or  to 
the  people."  The  word  "  people  "  here  means  the  people  of 
the  States  respectively. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  several  States,  in  virtue  of  the  powers 
reserved  to  them,  are  sovereign,  and  can  exercise  each  its  sov 
ereignty  ;  can,  by  its  own  constitution,  provide  for  the  punish 
ment  of  treason  committed  against  itself.  The  Federal  Consti 
tution  recognizes  treason  against  a  State  as  a  crime. 

Besides  being  sovereign  in  respect  to  reserved  rights,  the 
States  are  sovereign  in  respect  to  delegated  powers,  inasmuch 
as  they  can  constitutionally  resume  them.  The  legislatures  of 
three  fourths  of  the  States  can  resume  the  powers  delegated  to 
the  Federal  Government,  and  exercise  those  powers  themselves. 

The  Federal  Government  has  no  inherent  sovereignty,  but 
only  the  delegated  power  to  exercise  sovereignty  in  certain 
cases  or  over  certain  subjects,  which  power  it  can  hold  only 
during  the  pleasure  of  the  States.  It  is  in  its  very  nature 
dependent  on  the  States  for  its  existence.  If  the  States  refuse 
to  appoint  senators,  or  presidential  electors,  the  Government 
must  cease  to  exist.  If  the  States,  or  three  fourths  of  them, 
should  resume  the  powers  delegated,  it  would  cease  to  exist. 

The  Federal  Government  is  not  an  integer,  as  the  British 
Government  is,  but  is  the  fraction  of  an  integer.  A  State  gov 
ernment  is  not  an  integer,  but  the  fraction  of  an  integer.  Each 
is  supreme  in  its  own  sphere ;  the  one  in  the  sphere  of  dele 
gated  powers,  the  other  in  the  sphere  of  reserved  rights. 
These  two  fractional  governments,  added  together,  make  an 


REMARKS.  357 

integer,  or  one  government,  as  complete  as  the  British  Govern 
ment.  Each  of  these  governments  derives  its  binding  force  in 
each  of  the  States,  from  the  sovereign  people  of  that  State, 
who  delegated  certain  powers  to  the  Federal  Government  to  be 
exercised  by  that  agency,  and  retained  all  the  other  rights  of 
an  independent  government,  to  be  exercised  by  its  own  agent, 
the  State  Government. 

The  eminent  statesmen  of  the  land,  the  constitutions  of 
many  of  the  States,  and  the  writings  of  able  politicians,  all 
recognize  the  doctrine  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  States.  Thus 
the  Constitution  of  Massachusetts  contains  the  following  affirma 
tion  of  the  doctrine  :  "  The  people  of  this  commonwealth  have 
the  sole  and  exclusive  right  of  governing  themselves,  as  a  free, 
SOVEREIGN,  and  independent  State,  and  do  and  forever  hereafter 
shall  exercise  and  enjoy  every  power,  jurisdiction,  and  right 
which  is  not  or  may  not  hereafter  be  by  them  EXPRESSLY  dele 
gated  to  the  United  States." 

Mr.  CLAY  :  "  What  is  the  nature  of  this  Government  ?  It 
is  emphatically  Federal — vested  with  an  aggregate  of  specific 
powers  for  general  purposes,  conceded  by  existing  sovereignties, 
who  have  themselves  retained  what  is  not  conceded." 

VIRGINIA,  by  her  Assembly,  in  1798,  among  other  resolu 
tions  of  the  same  character,  passed  the  following :  "  The  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States  was  formed  by  the  sanction  of  the 
States,  given  by  each  in  its  sovereign  capacity.  It  adds  to  the 
stability  and  dignity  as  well  as  the  authority  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  that  it  rests  on  this  legitimate  and  solid  foundation.  The 
States,  then,  being  parties  to  the  constitutional  compact,  and  in 
their  sovereign  capacity,  it  follows  of  necessity  that  there  can 
be  no  tribunal  above  their  authority,  in  the  last  resort,  on  such 
questions  as  may  be  of  sufficient  magnitude  to  require  their 
interposition.  The  authority  of  constitutions  over  governments, 
and  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  people  over  the  constitution,  are 
truths  which  are  at  all  times  necessary  to  be  kept  in  mind." 
See  pp.  44,  45. 

BOUNDARY  BETWEEN  DELEGATED  POWERS  AND  RESERVED 
RIGHTS. — The  powers  delegated  respect  chiefly  what  is  exter 
nal  :  as  treaties  with  foreign  nations,  war,  peace,  commerce, 


358  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

and  what  could  not  be  settled  by  the  individual  States,  as  coin 
ing  money,  weights  and  measures,  postal  service.  These  re 
served  rights  respect  all  beside  what  is  internal :  as  titles  to 
property,  the  descent  of  estates,  morals,  education,  religion. 
As  the  Federal  Constitution  forms  the  boundary  between  the 
delegated  powers  and  the  reserved  rights,  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  is  not  only  bound  not  to  pass  that  boundary,  but  to  show 
that  it  does  not  pass  that  boundary.  The  onus  probandi,  the 
burden  of  proof,  rests  on  it  to  show  that  it  has  authority  for 
what  it  does.  When  the  boundary  is  doubtful  or  obscure,  it 
must  always  be  careful  not  to  transgress  it.  In  a  given  case  of 
transgression  by  a  Federal  enactment,  there  is  no  obligation  to 
obey  it,  either  on  the  part  of  States  or  individuals. 

THE  TRANSGRESSION  OF  THE  BOUNDARY — DELEGATED  POWERS. 
— If  the  executive  branch  of  the  Federal  Government  should 
deliberately,  plainly,  palpably  transgress  this  boundary,  it 
becomes  the  duty  of  the  legislative  branch  to  object  to  this 
transgression  ;  and,  if  the  case  can  be  made  to  assume  a  suit  at 
law,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  judicial  branch  to  declare  the  act  to 
be  unconstitutional.  If  the  legislative  branch  should  deliber 
ately,  plainly,  palpably  transgress  this  boundary,  it  then  be 
comes  the  duty  of  the  executive  to  object  to  this  transgression  ; 
and,  if  the  case  can  be  made  to  assume  a  suit  at  law,  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  judicial  branch  to  declare  the  law  unconstitutional 
and  null.  If  the  legislative  and  the  executive  should,  under 
the  influence  of  party  spirit,  or  for  any  reason,  unite  in  the 
transgression,  it  then  becomes  the  duty  of  the  judicial  branch, 
if  the  case  can  be  made  to  assume  a  suit  at  law,  to  declare  the 
law  or  the  act  unconstitutional  and  null. 

If  the  three  branches  should  conspire  to  transgress,  deliber 
ately,  plainly,  palpably,  the  boundary  of  delegated  powers,  it 
then  becomes  the  duty  of  the  States  to  place  themselves  on 
their  reserved  rights,  and  interpose  objections ;  just  as,  in  one 
way  or  another,  Virginia  did  in  1798  ;  Kentucky  did  in  1798  ; 
Massachusetts  did,  at  different  times ;  as  Connecticut  did ;  as 
South  Carolina  did.  The  protest  of  a  single  State  ought  to 
have  influence  to  correct  the  error,  as  it  did  when  General 
JACKSON  was  President. 


REMAKES.  359 

But  the  true,  the  appropriate  remedy  for  all  dangerous  en 
croachments  of  the  Federal  Government  upon  the  reserved 
rights  of  States,  and  of  the  people  of  the  States,  is  that  pro 
vided  by  the  Federal  Constitution,  namely,  the  amendment  of 
the  Constitution  itself.  That  instrument  contains  no  prohibi 
tion  against  any  State's  resuming  the  powers  which  it  delegated 
to  the  Federal  Government ;  no  grant  of  power  to  coerce  a 
State  to  remain  in  the  Union  contrary  to  its  interests  or  its 
decisions ;  but  it  does  provide  for  its  own  amendment,  that  it 
may  thus  continue  to  be  a  bond  of  union  between  the  States,  by 
preventing  all  collisions  between  the  States  and  the  Federal 
Government. 

It  is  a  historical  fact,  that  the  Federal  Constitution  would 
never  have  been  adopted  by  several  of  the  leading  States,  such 
as  Virginia,  Massachusetts,  and  New  York,  unless  with  the 
understanding  that  important  amendments  would  be  made  to  it. 
Mr.  JEFFERSON,  that  most  sagacious  statesman,  proposed  that 
the  Constitution  should  be  so  amended  that  Louisiana  could 
constitutionally  belong  to  the  Union.  The  Hartford  Conven 
tion  proposed  that  eight  amendments  be  made  to  the  Constitu 
tion.  In  1860-'61,  when  the  Southern  States  were  dissatisfied 
with  the  aggressions  of  the  Northern  States  upon  their  rights,  ' 
Mr.  CRITTENDEN,  and  afterwards  the  Peace  Congress,  proposed 
certain  amendments  to  the  Federal  Constitution,  as  healing 
measures.  These  amendments  were  most  unfortunately  reject 
ed.  By  rejecting  them,  the  Republican  party  rejected  the 
means  provided  by  the  framers  of  the  Federal  Constitution  for 
preserving  the  peace  and  union  of  the  States,  and  thus  took  the 
responsibility  and  the  blame  as  to  the  deplorable  consequences 
which  followed.  Instead  of  amending  the  Constitution,  they 
chose  to  violate  it.  Some  of  them,  from  political  ambition  and 
political  hatred,  appear  to  have  been  willing  to  injure  those 
whom  they  hated ;  and  then,  in  accordance  with  the  remark 
of  the  philosophic  Roman  historian,  they,  in  turn,  hated  those 
whom  they  had  injured,  even  to  this  day. 

2.  CHANGE  OF  INTERPRETATION. — Massachusetts  had  always 
been  distinguished  for  her  strenuous  maintenance  of  Colony 
rights  and  State  rights,  against  the  encroachments  of  Regal 
24 


360  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

and  Federal  authority.  When  the  present  Federal  Constitu 
tion  was  brought  before  the  State  Convention  for  adoption,  it 
proposed  nine^mendments,  most  of  them  designed  to  limit  the 
power  of  the  Federal  Government,  and  to  increase  the  reserved 
rights  of  the  States.  JOHN  HANCOCK  and  SAMUEL  ADAMS  were 
always  stanch  supporters  of  State  rights.  So  were  the  leading 
men  of  the  State  generally,  until  about  1830. 

About  that  time  there  were  several  causes  in  operation  to 
produce  a  change  in  the  opinions  of  some  of  the  leading  men. 
As  the  State  had  taken  the  highest  ground  of  State  rights, 
against  the  Federal  Government,  in  defence  of  her  commerce, 
so  it  need  not  seem  strange  that  she  should  oscillate  into  the 
other  extreme  of  exaggerating  Federal  authority,  for  protecting 
her  manufactures ;  especially  as  her  pride  had  been  gratified  by 
having  her  son,  JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS,  placed  at  the  head  of 
that  government,  himself  in  favor  of  a  broad  or  loose  con 
struction  of  the  Constitution.  As  South  Carolina  and  the 
Southern  States  had  placed  themselves  on  their  reserved 
rights,  in  opposition  to  high  tariffs,  which  were  hostile  to  their 
interests,  so  Massachusetts  characteristically  placed  herself  on 
the  delegated  powers  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  for  the  pro 
motion  of  her  interests. 

NATHAN  DANE  had  been  an  advocate  of  State  rights ;  had 
written  in  favor  of  the  amendment  of  the  Federal  Constitution 
in  1793,  in  regard  to  the  suability  of  the  States ;  was  a  member 
of  the  Hartford  Convention,  whicfr  placed  itself  in  opposition 
to  the  Federal  Government  on  the  reserved  rights  of  the  States. 

In  his  Appendix  to  his  "  General  Abridgment  of  American 
Law"  he  has  the  following  remark :  "  It  is  the  State  nulli 
fying  doctrine,  and  State  separation,  which,  at  present,  almost 
exclusively  demand  the  serious  attention  of  every  friend  of  the 
Union."  So  "  exclusively  "  did  Mr.  DANE  look  at  the  doctrine 
of  nullification,  that,  instead  of  looking  at  the  Federal  Con 
stitution  in  order  to  understand  and  describe  it  as  it  is,  he 
looked  at  it  to  find  an  argument  against  South  Carolina 
nullification.  Hence,  instead  of  giving  us  solid  truth,  he 
exhibits,  in  his  statements,  political  metaphysics  and  philologi 
cal  distortions  not  much  to  the  credit  of  his  consistency.  He 


REMARKS.  361 

could  bear  Massachusetts  nullification  better  than  he  could  that 
of  South  Carolina.  Thus,  with  all  his  learning  and  ability,  he 
has  been  a  false  guide,  leading  some  of  the  sensible  men  of 
Massachusetts  astray  from  the  old  and  safe  paths  in  which 
their  fathers  walked. 

There  was  another  Massachusetts  man  who  exerted  a  wider 
and  more  decided  influence  by  his  learning,  legal  ability,  and 
fascinating  manners  and  conversation,  namely,  Judge  STORY. 
After  he  went  upon  the  bench  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  in  the  language  of  his  son,  "  he  proceeded  upon 
a  liberal  construction  of  the  Constitution,  as  creating  a  govern 
ment  of  efficiency  and  supreme  powers  over  the  United  States." 
By  a  "  liberal  construction,"  he  probably  means  such  a  con 
struction  as  would  increase  the  delegated  powers  of  the  Gene 
ral  Government,  and  diminish  the  reserved  rights  of  the  States. 
And  by  the  "  supreme  powers  over  the  United  States,"  he  may 
mean  that  the  federal  Government  has  supreme  power  over 
the  reserved  rights  of  the  States.  Some  of  the  statements  of 
Judge  STORY  lead  to  the  impression  that  such  was  his  opinion 
in  regard  to  the  "  supreme  powers  over  the  United  States." 
The  fallacy  of  some  of  his  statements  may  be  seen  in  a  review 
of  his  "  Commentaries  "  by  Judge  UPSHTJR.  The  false  or  lax 
teachings  of  Judge  STORY  had  an  influence,  especially  upon 
the  younger  lawyers  of  Massachusetts,  in  leading  them  from 
the  true  views  of  the  Constitution  taught  by  former  jurists 
and  statesmen.  They  felt  proud  to  follow  such  a  leader,  even 
when  he  was  wrong. 

Mr.  WEBSTER  also,  about  the  same  time,  swerved  from  his 
own  view,  or  the  true  view  of  the  nature  of  the  Federal  Gov 
ernment.  In  1830,  in  a  debate  between  himself,  on  the  one 
hand,  and  Senators  BENTON  and  HAYNE  on  the  other,  see  p.  101, 
in  speaking  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  he  says :  "It  is  the 
original  bargain,  the  compact  /  let  it  stand.  Let  the  advantage 
of  it  be  fully  enjoyed.  The  Union  is  too  full  of  benefits  to  be 
hazarded  in  propositions  for  changing  its  original  basis.  I  go 
for  the  Constitution  as  it  is,  and  for  the  Union  as  it  is.  But  I 
am  resolved  not  to  submit,  in  silence,  to  accusations,  either 


362  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

against  myself  individually,  or  against  the  North,  wholly 
unfounded  and  unjust ;  accusations  which  impute  to  us  a 
disposition  to  evade  the  constitutional  compact,  and  to  extend 
the  power  of  the  Government  over  the  internal  laws  and 
domestic  condition  of  the  States." 

And  yet,  strange  to  say,  Mr.  WEBSTER,  see  p.  214,  declares 
that  the  Constitution  is  not  a  "  compact "  between  the  people 
of  the  several  States.  It  has  been  a  matter  of  surprise  that 
Mr.  WEBSTER  should  have  made  this  strange  declaration.  But 
it  should  be  remembered  that  he  made  it  in  a  discussion  with 
Mr.  CALHOTJN,  a  statesman  of  a  highly  trained  logical  mind, 
who  might  take  advantage  of  any  concession  that  he  should 
make.  Hence  it  was  said  of  Mr.  WEBSTER  that,  on  that  occa 
sion,  "  he  denied  first  principles."  At  least  he  denied  what 
afterwards  he  admitted. 

Besides  the  quotations  from  his  speech  at  Capon  Springs,  in 
1851,  see  p.  202,  in  which  he  calls  the  Constitution  a  "  com 
pact,"  his  speech  before  the  "  Young  Men  at  Albany,"  May'  28, 
1851,  furnishes  several  instances  in  which  he  does  the  same : 
"  Now,  under  this  state  of  things,  gentlemen,  when  the  Con 
stitution  was  framed,  its  framers,  and  the  people  who  adopted 
it,  came  to  a  clear,  express,  unquestionable  stipulation  and 
compact"  "  Here  was  the  constitutional  compact >,  nevertheless, 
still  binding."  "  When  called  on  to  fulfil  a,  compact,  the 
question  is,  will  you  fulfil  it  2  "  "If  the  compact  of  the  Con 
stitution  is  fair,  and  was  fairly  entered  into,  it  is  none  the 
worse,  one  would  think,  for  its  having  been  found  useful." 

In  his  speech  delivered  before  the  "  Reform  Convention 
of  Maryland"  at  Annapolis,  March  25,  1851,  he  speaks  of 
u  the  laws  of  Congress,  passed  to  carry  into  effect  the  compacts 
of  the  Constitution" 

It  was  unfortunate  for  Mr.  WEBSTER,  in  his  discussion  with 
Mr.  CALHOUN,  1833,  that  he  "  appeared  to  deny  first  princi 
ples,"  and  thus  led  some  of  his  many  admirers  into  errors  con 
cerning  the  nature  of  the  Federal  Government.  In  the  speech 
just  mentioned,  Mr.  WEBSTER  shows  most  fully  that  he  was 
opposed  to  a  consolidated  government,  and  an  advocate  of 
State  rights.  Mr.  CALHOUN  showed  up  his  inconsistency  ;  and 
in  his  later  speeches  he  seems  to  have  virtually  admitted  it,  as 


REMARKS.  363 

in  the  quotations  above,  and  in  the  following :  "  In  the  lapse 
of  years,  and  in  the  rising  of  one  generation  after  another,  it 
may  possibly  happen,  and  we  are  sure  it  does  happen,  that  the 
exact  principles  of  the  union  of  these  States  are  not  always 
properly  understood.  It.  may  not  be  amiss  to  recur  now  to 
what  I  conceive  to  be  the  original  principle  upon  which  the 
Colonies  were  united  ;  the  objects  for  which  they  were  united  ; 
and  the  limitations  upon  these  objects.  These  thirteen  colo 
nies,  all  of  English  origin,  were  settled  on  this  continent  at 
different  times,  and  under  different  circumstances.  They  had 
differences  of  religious  opinions ;  they  established  differences 
of  local  law  and  administration ;  they  were,  some  of  them, 
quite  remote  from  one  another,  but  they  were  all  subject  to 
the  crown  of  England.  And  when,  in  the  course  of  events, 
they  all  thought,  and  thought  truly,  they  had  just  cause  of 
complaint  against  the  tyranny  of  England,  their  object  was  to 
unite  in  a  common  cause  against  a  common  enemy.  How 
unite  ?  For  what  purposes  unite  ?  For  what  ends  unite  ? 
Why,  it  never  entered  into  their  conceptions  that  they  were  to 
consolidate  themselves  into  one  integral  government ;  that  they 
were  to  cease  to  be  Virginia,  Maryland,  Massachusetts,  and 
Carolina  ;  not  at  all.  But  they  were  to  unite  for  those  great 
purposes  which  would  enable  them  to  make  a  stand  against 
the  injustice  of  the  English  Government.  They  were  to  unite 
for  the  common  defence  and  the  general  welfare.  They  were 
to  come  to  an  agreement  upon  things  necessary  for  that  pur 
pose,  and  nothing  else.  The  objects  of  common  defence  and 
the  general  welfare,  and  afterwards  the  objects  connected  with 
commerce  and  revenue,  which  were  important  to  all,  were  all 
they  adopted  as  principles  and  objects  of  union  and  associa 
tion.  Nothing  beyond  that. 

"  As  I  have  said,  they  had  differences  of  religious  opinions. 
Maryland,  your  Maryland,  was  settled  as  a  Catholic  country, 
always  tolerant,  always  liberal,  persecuting  nobody.  Virginia 
was  rather  inclined  to  the  religious  notions  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  of  England.  The  people  of  the  North  were  not  only 
Protestants,  but  Dissenters.  They  were  of  the  school  of 
CROMWELL  and  Sir  HENRY  VANE.  But  what  of  that  ?  When 
all  the  colonies  came  together  for  the  general  purpose  of 


364:  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

defence  against  a  common  enemy,  what  did  they  do  ?  Did 
they  seek  to  merge  and  confound  and  consolidate  all  these 
States  into  one  great  community?  No  such  thing.  They 
meant  to  unite  upon  those  objects  which  were  necessary  for 
the  common  defence  ;  and  they  meant  to  leave  every  thing  else 
in  the  control  of  the  States,  to  do  just  as  they  thought  proper. 
That  was  a  day  of  liberality  and  justice.  It  was  a  day  in 
which  religious  opinions  produced  no  effect  upon  the  general 
sentiments  of  the  country,  in  regard  to  the  association  of  the 
States  for  common  objects.  Why,  sir,  did  any  body  at  the 
North  ;  did  any  Protestant,  descending  from  ancestors  inherit 
ing  the  principles  of  CROMWELL  or  of  HENRY  VANE,  whoever 
he  was,  feel  any  less  confidence  in  the  integrity  and  entire 
patriotism  of  CHARLES  CARROLL,  because  he  was  a  Catholic? 
Not  at  all.  Nor  did  Maryland  hesitate  to  accord  the  meed  of 
patriotism,  whenever  it  was  due,  to  the  ADAMSES,  to  ALEX 
ANDER  HAMILTON,  to  RUFUS  KING,  or  whoever  else  belonged 
to  the  North,  because  they  were  of  different  sentiments'  in 
religion.  Their  association  was  political.  It  was  founded  on 
general  policy  and  union ;  a  sort  of  confederacy,  at  that  time, 
to  resist  the  common  enemy,  and  to  do  what  was  necessary  for 
the  common  good.  Gentlemen,  I  hope,  for  one,  never  to  see 
this  original  idea  departed  from. 

"  Now  we  come  to  other  propositions.  There  were  differ 
ences  of  laws.  The  Southern  States,  without  their  own  fault, 
by  a  course  of  events  for  which  they  were  not  responsible,  had 
slavery  established  among  them.  Did  not  all  the  States  know 
that  ?  Did  they  not  deal  with  them  upon  that  basis  ?  Did 
they  not  recognize  that  state  of  things?  Entirely,  entirely. 
That  was  a  matter  of  local  legislation,  of  State  right  and  State 
administration,  with  which  the  North  at  that  time  had  not  the 
slightest  inclination  to  interfere  in  any  respect  whatever ;  and 
they  ought  not  to  have  had,  because  it  was  one  of  those  things 
that  did  not  enter  into  the  general  scope  of  that  political  asso 
ciation  which  the  colonies  meant  to  establish." 

It  is  unfortunate  for  Mr.  WEBSTER  that  in  his  celebrated 
debate  with  Mr.  HAYNE,  in  which  occurs  some  of  the  finest 
rhetoric,  he  should  have  taken  up  the  refuted  objection  of 
PATRICK  HENRY,  an  opposer  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  and 


REMARKS.  365 

should  intimate  tliat  "  we,  the  people  of  the  United  States," 
meant  the  people  in  the  aggregate,  and  not  the  people  of  the 
several  States.  Probably  Mr.  WEBSTER  saw  his  error,  espe 
cially  as  it  was  pointed  out  in  the  Senate  by  EDWARD  LIVING 
STONE.  It  was  also  unfortunate  that  in  his  debate  with  Mr. 
CALHOUN,  he  denied  that  the  Federal  Constitution  is  a  com 
pact  ;  but  this  he  afterwards  admitted,  as  above. 

In  his  debate  with  Mr.  HAYNE,  Mr.  WEBSTER  showed  him 
self,  in  his  very  able  speeches,  to  be  an  accomplished  rheto 
rician,  particularly  in  his  eulogy  upon  Massachusetts  and  the 
Union.  In  his  debate  with  Mr.  CALHOUN,  1833,  in  his  very 
able  speeches,  he  showed  himself  to  be  an  able  advocate  and 
an  acute  logician.  In  the  speeches  delivered  in  the  last  years 
of  his  life,  he  showed  himself  to  be  a  patriotic  and  broad- 
minded  American  statesman  ;  a  light  for  the  whole  country. 

3.  Mr.  DOUGLAS,  in  the  Senate,  March  15,  1861,  said :  "  In 
my  opinion,  we  must  choose,  and  that  promptly,  between  one 
of  three  lines  of  policy. 

"1.  The  restoration  and  preservation  of  the  Union,  by 
such  amendments  to  the  Constitution  as  will  ensure  the 
domestic  tranquillity,  safety,  and  equality  of  the  States,  and 
thus  restore  peace,  unity,  and  fraternity  to  the  whole  country. 

"  2.  A  peaceful  dissolution  of  the  Union,  by  recognizing 
the  independence  of  such  States  as  refuse  to  remain  in  the 
Union,  without  such  constitutional  amendments,  and  the  estab 
lishment  of  a  liberal  system  of  commercial  and  social  inter 
course  with  them,  by  treaties  of  commerce  and  amity. 

"  3.  War,  with  a  view  to  the  subjugation  and  military 
occupation  of  those  States  that  have  seceded,  or  may  secede 
from  the  Union. 

"  In  my  opinion,  the  first  proposition  is  the  best,  and  the 
last,  the  worst." 

Mr.  HALE,  in  his  speech,  delivered  on  the  18th,  was  in  favor 
of  the  second :  "  Instead  of  asking  the  States  that  have  gone 
out  to  come  back,  he  would  request  more  to  go  out,  who  are 
not  willing  to  stay  in  the  Union  as  our  fathers  made  it." 

The  speech  in  which  these  alternatives  are  presented,  was 
the  last  great  speech  of  Mr.  DOUGLAS  in  the  Senate  for  the 


366  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

preservation  of  the  Union,  and  in  opposition  to  war.  Sc 
powerful  were  his  arguments,  that  it  was  beyond  the  ability 
of  his  opponents  to  make  an  adequate  reply.  They  accord 
ingly  resorted  to  insulting  personalities,  the  subterfuge  of  a 
certain  class  of  minds,  when  they  feel  helpless  at  the  bar  of 
reason.  This  he  distinctly  charges  upon  Messrs.  FESSENDEN, 
WILSON,  and  HALE. 

In  the  progress  of  the  debate,  Mr.  DOUGLAS  took  occasion 
to  say,  that  Mr.  LINCOLN  could  not  pursue  a  certain  course 
without  the  authority  of  law,  because,  if  he  did,  he  would 
perjure  himself,  and  that  "  he  did  not  intend  to  perjure  him 
self."  If  Mr.  DOUGLAS  had  lived  a  few  months  longer,  would 
he  not  have  said  that  he  did  perjure  himself? 

Educated  in  the  school  of  WEBSTER  and  CLAY  and  CAL- 
HOUN  and  JACKSON,  to  understand  the  nature  of  our  double 
government,  the  powers  delegated  to  the  Federal  Union,  and 
the  rights  reserved  to  the  States,  with  his  far-reaching  mind, 
he  could,  as  with  a  prophet's  ken,  see  effects  in  their  causes. 
Having  done  what  a  statesman  and  a  patriot  could  do  to  save 
his  country,  he  went  home  to  die,  and  to  leave  as  a  legacy  to 
his  children  his  injunction  :  "  TELL  THEM  TO  SUPPORT  THE  CON 


STITUTION  AND  THE  LAWS." 


4.  Mr.  SEWARD,  in  the  Senate,  1850,  on  the  compromise 
measures,  said :  "  We  deem  the  principle  of  the  law,  for  the 
recapture  of  fugitive  slaves,  unjust,  unconstitutional,  and  im 
moral."  After  quoting  the  clause  from  the  Constitution 
which  requires  the  restoration  of  fugitive  slaves,  he  went  on 
to  say :  "  This  is  from  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
framed  1787,  and  the  parties  were  the  Republican  States  of 
the  Union.  The  law  of  nations  disavows  such  compacts ;  the 
law  of  nature,  written  on  the  hearts  and  consciences  of  pure 
men,  repudiates  them.  Armed  powers  could  not  enforce  them, 
because  there  is  no  public  conscience  to  sustain  them." 

He  here  states  what  was  the  real  difficulty,  which  was,  not 
in  the  fugitive  slave  laws  enacted  by  Congress,  but  the  clause 
in  the  Constitution,  "  in  pursuance  of  which  "  the  laws  were 
enacted.  The  conscience  of  the  people  in  the  free  States  was 
justly  opposed  to  that  clause,  and  therefore  could  not  be  car 
ried  out ;  this  is  his  argument. 


REMARKS.  367 

But  if  the  conscience  of  the  people  in  the  slaveholding 
States  required  that  it  should  be  carried  out,  which  conscience 
ought  to  prevail — an  unconstitutional  conscience,  or  a  constitu 
tional  conscience  ?  This  clause  was  vital  to  the  formation  of 
the  Federal  Constitution.  See  p.  22.  And  if  the  Northern 
States  refused  to  carry  it  out,  were  not  the  Southern  States 
released  from  their  obligations  to  the  constitutional  compact  ? 
Who  helped  to  form  that  conscience  ?  Did  not  he  who  would 
now  use  it  for  his  own  party  purposes  ? 

Mr.  SEWARD,  as  reported  in  the  Senate,  March  18,  1861, 
in  a  speech  to  a  delegation  from  Illinois,  about  the  time  of  the 
inauguration  of  President  LINCOLN,  used  the  following  lan 
guage  :  "  Formerly  I  called  your  attention  away  from  the 
Union,  when  it  was  not  in  danger,  to  the  principles  of  freedom, 
when  they  were  in  danger  ;  so  now,  having  secured  firmly  the 
principles  of  freedom,  as  we  Republicans  understand  them,  I 
call  your  attention  away  from  those  principles,  not  in  danger, 
to  the  Union,  which  is  in  danger ;  and  we  must  preserve  the 
Union  as  the  means  of  securing  the  triumph  of  those  princi 
ples." 

i '  The  Union  was  not  in  danger  ?  "  The  Union  was  in 
danger ;  and  a  party  arose  called  the  "  Union  Party,"  which 
was  ridiculed  by  the  Republicans,  and  called,  in  derision, 
"  Union  Savers,"  because  they  believed  the  Union  was  in 
danger.  Mr.  SEWARD  finally  opened  his  eyes  to  the  fact  that 
the  Union  was  in  danger.  A  statesman  ought  to  see  effects  in 
their  causes  ;  he  ought  to  have  seen  that  he  was,  with  others, 
putting  causes  into  operation  that  would  produce  their  legiti 
mate  effects,  namely,  a  separation  of  the  States.  He  and 
others  had  put  in  their  wedge  between  the  States,  and  driven 
it  with  all  the  force  which  party  machinery  could  apply  ;  and 
now,  when  seven  States  were  rifted  off,  he  opens  his  eyes  to 
the  discovery  that  the  "  the  Union  is  in  danger !  " 

And  now,  forsooth,  the  "  Union  must  be  preserved  ;  "  and 
why  ?  That  it  may  be  the  "  means  of  securing  the  triumph  of 
those  principles,"  rather  of  the  excited  passions  which  he  calls, 
by  an  abuse  of  terms,  "  principles."  Here  we  have  the  con 
fession,  that  the  Union  must  be  preserved  in  order  that  the 
Republican  party  should  triumph. 


368  THE    SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

Here,  too,  we  have  disclosed  the  reason  of  the  change  of  the 
name  of  the  party,  from  that  of  "Kepnblican"  to  that  of 
"  Union  !  "  The  sectional  party,  the  disunion  party,  assumes 
to  itself  the  name  of  the  "  Union  party,"  to  carry  out  Kepnb 
lican  principles  triumphantly.  "  The  Liberty  Party,"  "  the 
Free  Soil  Party,"  "  the  Anti-slavery  Party,"  "  the  Abolition 
Party,"  "  the  Republican  Party,"  all  become  "  the  Union 
Party  ;  "  as  if  men  could  be  deceived  by  a  name.  Men  were 
deceived,  hurried  into  a  war  for  "  the  Union,"  and  came  out 
of  it  only  to  find  that  they  had  been  fighting  for  "  disunion  " 
as  an  end,  by  the  use  of  means  that  must  produce  disunion  in 
their  effects. 

Having  taken  the  name  "  Union,"  a  name  which  they  had 
ridiculed  and  despised,  they  were  prepared  to  bestow  the  name 
of  "  Copperhead  "  upon  all  who  were  opposed  to  them. 

5.  LOOSE  NOTIONS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. — Mr.  LINCOLN,  in 
his  letter  to  A.  G.  HODGES,  of  Kentucky,  April  4,  1864,  said: 
"  I  did  understand,  however,  that  my  oath  to  preserve  the 
Constitution,  to  the  best  of  my  ability,  imposed  upon  me  the 
duty  of  preserving,  by  every  indispensable  means,  that  govern 
ment,  that  nation,  of  which  the  Constitution  is  the  organic  law. 
Was  it  possible  to  lose  the  nation,  and  yet  preserve  the  Con 
stitution  ?  By  general  law,  life  and  limb  must  be  protected ; 
yet  often  a  limb  must  be  amputated  to  save  a  life ;  but  a  life 
is  never  wisely  given  up  to  preserve  a  limb.  I  felt  that  meas 
ures,  otherwise  unconstitutional,  might  become  lawful  by  be 
coming  indispensable  to  the  preservation  of  the  Constitution, 
through  the  preservation  of  the  nation.  Right  or  wrong,  I 
assumed  this  ground,  and  1  now  avow  it" 

"We  have  in  this  case  a  sample  of  Mr.  LINCOLN'S  reasoning. 
His  mind  was  analogical,  not  logical,  and  hence  he  was  led 
astray  to  make  the  worse  appear  the  better  reason,  in  this  as 
in  other  cases.  The  analogy  does  not  meet  the  case.  He  took 
an  oath  to  "  preserve,  protect,  and  defend  the  Constitution" 
This  oath  says  nothing  about  the  "nation"  The  word 
"  nation  "  is  not  even  in  the  Constitution,  and  was  carefully 
excluded  from  it.  Why  does  he  introduce  the  word  "  Govern 
ment  "  in  connection  with  his  oath,  when  the  oath  says  nothing 


EEMAEKS.  369 

about  the  Government.  Nor  does  the  Constitution,  in  Article 
II.,  which  describes  the  duties  of  the  President,  say  one  word 
about  the  "Government."  'It  does  not  even  contain  the  word. 
Thus  it  appears  that  Mr.  LINCOLN  avows  that  he  violated  the 
Constitution  which  he  had  sworn  to  "  preserve,  protect,  and 
defend,"  and  became  a  perjured  man,  in  order  that  he  might 
preserve  the  "  Government "  and  the  "  nation,"  which  he  did 
not  take  an  oath  to  preserve.  The  Constitution,  in  the  words 
of  that  instrument,  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  "  made 
in  pursuance  thereof"  *  *  "  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the 
land."  That  supreme  law,  in  violation  of  his  oath,  Mr.  LINCOLN 
saw  fit  to  violate. 

It  has  been  said  of  Shakespeare,  that  "  a  quibble  was  to 
him  the  fatal  Cleopatra  for  which  he  lost  the  world,  and  was 
content  to  lose  it."  An  analogy  or  a  joke  was  Mr.  LINCOLN'S 
"  fatal  Cleopatra." 

With  a  similar  inconsistency  in  his  Inaugural  Message,  he 
speaks  of  the  "  people  as  his  rightful  masters."  This  is  a  very 
submissive  declaration  ;  flattering  in  the  extreme.  How  much 
sincerity  was  there  in  it  ?  In  his  last  Annual  Message,  he  says  : 
"  If  the  people  should,  by  whatever  means,  make  it  an  executive 
duty  to  recnslave  such  persons  (namely,  those  whom  he  pretend 
ed  to  make  free  by  his  Emancipation  Proclamation),  another, 
and  not  I,  must  be  the  instrument  to  perform  it."  In  the  one 
message  he  flattered  the  people ;  in  the  other  he  set  them  at 
defiance. 

In  his  proclamation,  September  22,  1862,  Mr.  LINCOLN  said : 
"  And  the  Executive  Government  of  the  United  States,  includ 
ing  the  military  and  naval  authority  thereof."  Where  did  Mr. 
LINCOLN  find  a  justification  of  this  language  ?  The  Constitution 
created  a  government  consisting  of  three  branches  :  the  Legisla 
tive,  the  Judicial,  and  the  Executive.  And  it  is  just  as  absurd 
to  call  the  Executive  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  as 
it  would  be  to  call  the  Judicial  branch  the  Government.  In 
this  use  of  language  was  Mr.  LINCOLN  an  ignorant  man,  or  a 
usurper  ? 

It  is  true  that  others,  in  their  desire  to  magnify  the  powers 
of  the  President,  used  similar  language.  They  were  willing  to 
clothe  him  with  dictatorial  or  regal  power,  in  their  frenzied  love 


370  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

of  a  "  strong  Government."  From  these  sycophants  he  may 
have  borrowed  the  improper  phrase. 

He  speaks  of  "  the  military  and  naval  authority. "  The 
army  and  the  navy  are  only  agents  of  the  civil  power,  and  have 
no  authority  in  themselves.  The  civil  power  has  no  authority, 
except  what  is  derived  from  the  Federal  Constitution.  As  he  is 
the  Commander-in-chief  of  the  Army  and  Navy  of  the  United 
States,  in  this,  as  in  the  proclamation  at  large,  he  uses  the 
language  of  a  usurper. 

In  contrast  to  Mr.  LINCOLN'S  loose  notions,  read  the  follow 
ing  declaration  of  General  Jackson  at  the  close  of  his  Nullifica 
tion  Proclamation :  "  It  being  shown  to  be  the  duty  of  the 
Executive  to  execute  the  laws  by  all  constitutional  means,  it 
remains  to  consider  the  extent  of  those  already  at  his  disposal, 
and  what  may^be  proper  further  to  provide." 

WENDELL  PHILLIPS  could  frankly  say,  "  The  Constitution 
of  our  fathers  was  a  mistake.  Tear  it  to  pieces,  and  make  a 
better."  Mr.  LINCOLN  and  his  party  tore  it  to  pieces  under 
pretence  of  saving  it. 

In  his  Message,  March  6,  1862,  he  says :  "  In  my  judgment, 
gradual,  and  not  sudden  emancipation  is  better  for  all."  On 
September  22  of  the  same  year  he  published  his  proclamation 
for  "  sudden  emancipation." 

Loose  notions  of  the  Constitution  became  general,  and 
extended  to  courts,  as  may  be  seen  by  many  decisions.  Thus 
the  Constitution  declares  that  "  Congress  shall  have  power  to 
declare  the  punishment  of  treason,  but  no  attainder  of  treason 
shall  work  corruption  of  blood,  or  forfeiture,  except  during  the 
life  of  the  person  so  attainted."  Under  this  provision,  Judge 
JOHN  C.  UNDERWOOD,  of  the  United  States  Court  of  Eastern 
Virginia,  decided  that  all  right  is  forfeited  after  the  death  of 
the  person  attainted,  so  that  the  children  cannot  inherit,  after 
the  death  of  the  father ;  thus  setting  philology,  justice,  and 
the  Constitution  aside. 

The  judges,  in  many  cases,  seemed  to  consider  it  safer  to 
make  their  decisions  in  accordance  with  the  views  of  the 
Executive,  who  usurped  power  which  belonged  to  the  other 
departments  of  the  Government,  than  to  oppose  those  views  by 
making  their  decisions  in  accordance  with  the  Constitution. 


KEMAEKS.  371 

"  State  necessity,"  a  necessity  created  by  themselves,  was,  by 
Mr.  LINCOLN  and  his  party,  regarded  as  the  measure  of  the  Con 
stitution. 

Mr.  JENNINGS,  in  his  work,  published  in  1868,  entitled, 
"Eighty  Years  of  Republican  Government  in  the  United 
States"  p.  54,  makes  this  remark :  "  Any  man  who  entered 
on  the  presidency  with  his  mind  imbued  with  the  precepts 
of  the  Constitution  and  the  teachings  of  the  '  fathers,'  would 
ruin  his  cause  and  himself  in  a  twelvemonth.'5 

Mr.  LINCOLN  was  not  "  imbued  with  precepts  of  the  Con 
stitution,  and  the  teachings  of  the  '  fathers ; ' "  and,  moreover, 
he  was  determined  not  to  ruin  his  party  and  himself. 

In  his  speech  at  Indianapolis,  when  on  his  way  to  Washing- 
tori  to  be  inaugurated,  he  said  :  "  By  the  way,  in  what  consists 
the  special  sacredness  of  a  State  ?  "  "  If  a  State  and  a  country, 
in  a  given  case,  should  be  equal  in  extent  of  territory,  and 
equal  in  number  of  inhabitants,  in  what,  as  a  matter  of  principle, 
is  the  State  better  than  the  country  ?  "  The  President  elect 
here  furnishes  a  specimen  of  his  loose  notions  of  the  Federal 
Constitution  created  by  the  States. 

In  his  Message,  July  4,  1861,  he  says  :  "  Tested  by  this,  no 
one  of  the  States,  except  Texas,  ever  was  a  sovereignty." 
Did  he  not  know  that,  at  least  until  1788.  the  States  were 
sovereign,  and  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation  declared  their 
sovereignty  ? 

And  again  he  says,  "  the  Union  was  older  than  the  States." 
But  the  Union  was  a  union  of  States  ;  and  how  could  a  union 
of  States  be  formed  until  after  the  States  existed  ?  They  could 
not  act  in  forming  a  union  until  after  they  existed. 

These  are  but  specimens  of  his  loose  notions  of  the  Federal 
Constitution  and  Government. 

It  should  be  added  that,  as  soon  as  it  became  necessary  that 
the  powers  vested  in  Congress  or  the  President  by  the  Con 
stitution  should  be  increased,  in  order,  apparently,  to  justify 
some  act  of  usurpation  or  despotism,  ingenious  writers  stood 
ready  to  prove,  by  metaphysical  arguments,  that  the  usurped 
and  despotic  powers  were  constitutional ;  and  that  the  Consti 
tution  itself  could  be  stretched  or  contracted  by  the  Govern 
ment,  at  its  will,  to  meet  all  possible  exigencies ! 


372  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

6.  CANT  WORDS. — Loyalty  was,  in  the  war,  used  as  a  cant 
word,  often  with  a  vague  meaning,  and  sometimes  with  a  false 
meaning.  To  illustrate  the  latter  use,  the  following  quotations 
are  made  from  a  sermon,  published  in  1863,  by  HENRY  W. 
BELLOWS,  D.D.,  of  New  York,  entitled,  "  Unconditional  Loy 
alty."  Speaking  of  President  LINCOLN,  he  uses  the  following 
language  :  "  He  can  truly  say,  with  Louis  XI V.,  6  The  State,  it 
is  I.'  '  Dishonor  me,  and  you  disgrace  the  nation.'  '  "Weaken 
me,  and  you  undermine  the  country."1  "We  ought  to  feel 
that  he  fully  represents  both  the  expressed  or  constitutional, 
and  the  reserved  rights  of  the  people ;  that  his  oath  of  office 
was  solemnly  binding  not  only  on  him,  but  also  on  us,  for 
whom  he  took  it."  "Remember  that  he  speaks  as  the  Gov 
ernment,  and  for  the  Government,  with  all  the  wisdom  and 
capacity  the  Government  has." 

The  fallacy  of  the  above  statements  can  be  easily  under 
stood,  from  considering  that  the  Federal  Government  is  three 
fold — the  Legislative  power,  the  Judicial,  the  Executive — each 
being  delegated.  The  Congress  is  not  the  Government ;  the 
Judiciary  is  not  the  Government ;  the  Executive  is  not  the 
Government ;  but  all,  taken  together,  are  the  Government. 
Dr.  BELLOWS'  mistake  consists  in  attributing  to  one,  what  be 
longs  to  three. 

Having  made  this  mistake,  we  need  not  be  surprised  that 
he  runs  into  another — that  of  requiring  men  to  be  faithful  to 
President  LINCOLN,  as  if  a  prince  or  a  despot. 

If  Dr.  BELLOWS  does  not  know,  he  ought  to  know,  that, 
under  the  Federal  Constitution,  men  cannot  exercise  loyalty  in 
the  English  sense  of  the  word,  as  men  now  exercise  loyalty 
towards  Queen  VICTORIA  ;  as  the  Tories,  in  the  Revolutionary 
War,  exercised  loyalty  towards  GEORGE  III. ;  or  as  abbettors 
of  arbitrary  power  in  France  did  to  Louis  XIY.  In  England 
it  is  a  maxim,  that  the  King  can  do  no  wrong ;  it  is  not  a 
maxim  in  this  country,  that  a  President  can  do  no  wrong. 

But  Dr.  BELLOWS  not  only  insists  upon  loyalty  to  the  Presi 
dent,  but  upon  "  unconditional  loyalty."  The  English  were 
loyal  to  their  kings,  but  they  beheaded  CHARLES  I.  The 
French  were  loyal  to  their  kings,  but  they  beheaded  Louis 
XVI.  They  acted  on  the  principle  that  there  is  a  limit 


REMARKS.  373 

« 

beyond  which  loyalty  ought  not  to  be  exercised  towards  the 
king.  Their  loyalty  was  not  unconditional.  Dr.  BELLOWS 
seenis  to  favor  loyalty  without  limitation,  when  he  says  the 
Chief  Magistrate  is  a  "  sacred  person,"  and  that  "  he  fully  rep 
resents  the  expressed  or  constitutional  and  reserved  rights  of 
the  people."  The  absurdity  of  this  is  so  evident,  that  it  cannot 
fail  to  be  seen  by  any  one  who  understands  the  nature  of  the 
twofold  Government  under  which  we  live. 

Loyalty,  in  the  American  sense,  is  fidelity  to  the  Federal 
Constitution  and  the  State  Constitution ;  the  one  as  expressing 
the  powers  delegated  to  the  Federal  Government,  and  the  other 
as  expressing  some  of  the  reserved  rights  of  the  State,  and  both 
governments  deriving  their  authority  from  the  people  of  the 
State,  who  adopted  the  two  Constitutions  as  complements  of 
each  other.  Unconditional  loyalty  is  fidelity  to  those  funda 
mental  laws  in  all  circumstances,  and  is  not  fidelity  to  the 
Chief  Magistrate,  whether  he  supports  or  violates  those  laws  ; 
whether  he  is  Mr.  BUCHANAN,  Mr.  LINCOLN,  or  Mr.  JOHNSON. 
To  the  violation  of  these  fundamental  laws  by  the  President, 
the  reverend  preacher  seems  to  attach  very  little  importance, 
notwithstanding  he  alludes  to  the  official  oath  which  the  Presi 
dent  had  taken. 

The  following  quotation  shows  the  spirit  and  discrimination 
of  the  preacher :  "  But  no  plea  is  so  specious  and  so  dangerous, 
among  those  under  which  disloyalty  seeks  to  conceal  its  fangs, 
as  that  which  seeks  to  distinguish  between  the  Administration 
and  the  Government."  Dr.  BELLOWS  does  not  show  the  iden 
tity  of  the  Administration  and  the  Government.  In  this,  as  in 
other  parts  of  his  sermon,  instead  of  giving  us  a  logical  analy 
sis,  or  even  a  logical  statement,  he  goes  off  into  rhetorical 
analogies  and  graphical  flourishes,  which  show  the  fertility  of 
his  imagination  and  the  dearth  of  his  reason,  and  his  admira 
tion  of  European  governments. 

Is  Dr.  BELLOWS  so  ignorant  of  the  nature  of  the  Federal 
Government  as  not  to  know  that  there  is  a  wide  difference  be 
tween  that  "  Government  "  and  the  "  Administration  "  ?  Let 
him  look  into  the  Federal  Constitution  ;  let  him  read  the  politi 
cal  history  of  the  United  States,  in  which  the  collisions  between 
the  different  branches  of  the  government  are  described ;  let 


THE    SECTIONAL   CONTEOVEESY. 

him  understand  the  nature  of  the  conflict  between  President 
JOHNSON  and  Congress,  and  he  will  be  able  to  understand  that 
there  is  a  distinction  between  the  Administration  and  the  Gov 
ernment,  and  that  every  man  who  sets  up  to  be  a  teacher  of 
politics  from  the  pulpit  ought  to  recognize  that  distinction  ; 
unless,  as  a  sycophant,  he  wishes  to  flatter  power,  or,  as  a 
demagogue,  to  mislead  the  people.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  people 
to  support  the  government  created  by  the  Federal  Constitution, 
and  to  criticise  and  displace  an  Administration  that  violates 
that  constitution,  or  pursues  a  policy  injurious  to  the  interests 
of  the  country. 

Whether  or  not  Dr.  BELLOWS  ever  read  the  JLeviathan  of 
HOBBES,  or  the  Federalist,  his  opinions,  expressed  in  this  politi 
cal  sermon,  are  more  in  accordance  with  the  former,  as  to  the 
absolute  power  of  rulers,  than  with  the  latter. 

According  to  the  doctrines  of  the  sermon,  he  who  upheld 
the  unconstitutional  acts  of  the  President  was  loyal ;  he  who 
upheld  the  Federal  Constitution  was  disloyal.  In  other  words, 
he  who  upheld  the  administration  of  Mr.  LINCOLN  was  loyal ; 
he  who  opposed  it,  was  disloyal. 

In  a  letter  to  Mr.  ADAMS,  Minister  to  England  from  this 
country,  Mr.  SEWAED,  in  1861,  wrote  as  follows :  "  In  this 
country  it  is  a  habit,  not  only  entirely  consistent  with  the  Con 
stitution,  but  essential  to  its  stability,  to  regard  the  Administra 
tion  at  the  time  existing  as  distinct  and  separate  from  the  Gov 
ernment  itself,  and  to  canvass  the  proceedings  of  the  one,  with 
out  a  thought  of  disloyalty  to  the  other." 

"  Politics  and  the  pulpit  are  terms  that  have  little  agree 
ment.  No  sound  ought  to  be  heard  in  the  church  but  the  heal 
ing  voice  of  Christian  charity.  The  cause  of  civil  liberty  and 
civil  government  gains  as  little  as  that  of  religion  by  this  con 
fusion  of  duties.  Those  who  quit  their  proper  character  to 
assume. what  does  not  belong  to  them,  are,  for  the  greater  part, 
ignorant  both  of  the  character  they  have,  and  of  the  character 
they  assume.  Wholly  unacquainted  with  the  world  in  which 
they  are  so  fond  of  meddling,  and  inexperienced  in  all  its 
affairs,  on  which  they  pronounce  with  so  much  confidence,  they 
have  nothing  of  politics  but  the  passions  they  excite.  Surely 
the  church  is  a  place  where  one  day's  truce  ought  to  be  allowed 


REMARKS.  375 

to  the  dissensions  and  animosities  of  mankind. — BURKE,  "  Re 
flections  on  the  French  Revolution" 

Let  Dr.  BELLOWS,  and  other  clergymen  who  feel  inclined  to 
leave  religion,  which  they  do  understand,  and  preach  politics, 
which  they  do  not  understand,  read  the  above  for  their  admo 
nition,  "  not  to  boast  in  another  man's  line." 

War-Power. — Mr.  LINCOLN,  in  his  Message,  July  4,  1861, 
said  "  there  was  no  choice  left  but  to  call  out  the  war-power 
of  the  Government."  Editors  of  party  newspapers  echoed  the 
term,  until  it  became  current  as  a  cant  word.  The  "  war- 
power  "  was  spoken  of  as  some  mysterious  personage,  some 
spirit,  such  as  OWEN  GLENDOWER  could  call  "  from  the  vasty 
deep  "  ;  some  genius,  such  as  ALADDIN  could  call  up  with  his 
wonderful  lamp. 

What  is  its  meaning  ?  It  means,  if  it  means  anything,  in 
the  words  of  the  Constitution  :  "  Congress  shall  have  power  to 
declare  war  ; "  "  to  raise  and  support  armies  ; "  "  to  make  rules 
for  the  government  of  the  land  and  naval  forces."  Mr.  LIN 
COLN  usurped  the  power  of  Congress  in  calling  out  the  "  war- 
power."  In  his  vocabulary,  the  "  war-power "  was  a  new 
name  for  an  old  thing — military  despotism. 

I  am  aware  that  ingenious  men  wrote  essays  and  pamphlets 
magnifying  the  war-powers  of  the  President,  at  the  expense  of 
other  plain  provisions  of  the  Constitution.  They  were  like  some 
of  the  old  commentators  on  the  Bible,  who  could  find  "  moun 
tains  of  meaning  "  in  some  texts,  while  they  did  not  notice 
others  ;  or  the  naturalist,  who  exhibits  to  his  admiring  class  an 
insect  under  the  solar  microscope  magnified  into  enormous  pro 
portions. 

A  Republican  Form  of  Government.  —  This  expression, 
found  in  the  Federal  Constitution,  was  placed  there  to  prevent 
a  State,  on  its  reserved  rights,  from  putting  itself  under  a  king 
or  a  military  despotism.  The  Radicals  construe  this  to  mean 
negro  suffrage,  and,  by  its  incessant  use,  degraded  it  into  a  cant 
phrase.  Did  not  Connecticut  and  Virginia,  who  owned  slaves 
at  that  time,  have  a  republican  form  of  government  ?  Who 
should  be  voters,  was  expressly  left  to  the  States.  To  justify 
25 


376  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

the  views  of  those  Radicals,  who  thus  pervert  the  meaning  of 
the  phrase,  the  Constitution  ought  to  read,  "  Congress  shall 
have  power  to  guarantee  to  every  State  a  Hack  Republican 
form  of  government." 

Necessity,  "  the  tyrant's  plea,"  became  a  cant  word.  It 
was  spoken  of  as  superior  to  the  Constitution,  the  law,  moral 
ity,  humanity ;  just  as,  in  pagan  mythology,  Fate  was  superior 
to  the  gods.  If  the  Federal  Government  can  justify  what  is 
wrong  on  the  plea  of  necessity,  why  may  not  a  State  govern 
ment,  or  an  individual,  do  the  same  ? 

Logic  of  Events. — This  was  spoken  of  as  paramount  to  the 
logic  of  the  Constitution.  If  the  Southern  Confederacy,  or  the 
Northern  Confederacy,  should  bring  things  into  such  a  condi 
tion  that  it  would  become  more  convenient  for  the  Federal 
Government  to  violate  the  Constitution  than  to  obey  it,  then 
the  Government  is  justified  in  violating  it,  by  u  the  logic  -of 
events." 

There  were  many  other  current  cant  words  and  phrases 
containing  current  fallacies,  which  had  their  influence  in  mis 
leading  the  people. 

7.  ARBITRARY  ARRESTS. — These  arrests  were  not  only  a  dis 
grace  to  the  Administration,  but  to  the  country,  which  permit 
ted  them,  under  a  Constitution  which  forbade  them.  In  order 
to  understand  their  enormity,  as  political  crimes  committed  by 
men  high  in  office,  who  had  sworn  not  to  do  what  they  did  do, 
we  are  to  call  to  mind  that  several  thousands  were  arrested  in 
different  parts  of  the  country,  often  without  any  charges  alleged 
against  them  at  that  time,  or  when  dismissed  after  months  of 
confinement ;  that  great  numbers  of  them  were  injured  in 
health  and  property ;  that  this  tyranny  began  to  be  exercised 
as  early  as  April  24,  1861 ;  that  Fort  Lafayette,  New  York, 
Fort  Warren,  Boston,  Fort  McHenry,  and  prisons  elsewhere, 
were  filled  with  victims,  many  of  them  guiltless  of  any  crime  ; 
that  those  unhappy  persons — some,  or  many  of  them — were  not 
permitted  to  employ  counsel ;  that,  in  some  cases,  the  attempt 


REMARKS.  377 

to  employ  counsel  was  imputed  to  them  as  a  crime ;  that 
judges,  women,  youth,  clergymen,  were  arrested ;  as  said 
before,  without  any  charge  against  them. 

My  limits  do  not  allow  me  to  state  particulars.  One  in 
stance  must  suffice.  On  Sunday  morning,  February  9th,  1862, 
the  Rev.  R.  J.  STEWART,  a  minister  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
church  in  Alexandria,  was  seized  by  a  ruffian  with  a  captain's 
epaulettes  on  his  shoulders,  while  he  was  at  prayer  in  the 
church,  and  dragged  from  his  knees  by  the  soldiers.  What 
was  his  alleged  crime  ?  He  omitted  to  pray  for  the  President 
of  the  United  States  !  Ex  uno  disce  omnes. 

Whoever  will  read  the  history  of  the  sufferings  of  some  of 
the  prisoners  thus  arrested,  in  violation  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  will  find  a  parallel  in  the  sufferings  of  those 
who  were  confined  in  the  Black  Hole  of  Calcutta,  or  in  the  old 
Bastile  of  Paris.  Whoever  would  find  a  parallel  of  the  atroci 
ties  of  sending  them  thus  into  prison,  may  find  it  in  the  arbi 
trary  acts  of  the  Doge  of  Yenice,  in  the  worst  period  of  the 
government  there,  or  in  the  doings  of  the  Inquisition,  in  its 
most  tyrannical  acts.  Messrs.  LINCOLN,  SEWARD,  CAMERON,  and 
STANTON  must  stand  in  history  high  on  the  roll  of  infamy,  as 
long  as  there  is  any  regard  in  this  country  for  constitutional 
liberty. 

The  following  is  an  extract  from  a  letter  addressed  by 
GEORGE  GOULD,  Judge  of  the  Superior  Court,  New  York,  to 
President  LINCOLN,  in  behalf  of  G.  GOLDEN  TRACY,  who  had 
been  arrested  and  put  in  prison  in  Fort  Lafayette,  New  York  : 

"  The  young  man  is  the  grandson  of  that  URIAH  TRACY  who 
lived  and  died  a  Senator  of  the  United  States  from  Connecti 
cut,  who  was  the  first  man  buried  in  the  Congressional  burying- 
ground  at  Washington,  and  whose  ashes  are  insulted  by  this 
atrocious  invasion  of  the  liberties  of  the  people  in  the  person 
of  his  descendant. 

u  I  am  not  speaking  merely  my  own  opinion  of  such  arrests. 
I  know  the  opinions  and  the  feelings  of  my  brethren  of  the 
bench.  And  if  the  Government  is  desirous  of  so  proceeding  as 
to  make  public  our  opinions,  they  will  be  heard,  not  merely  in 
the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  bat  in  open  declaration  to  the 
world. 


378  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

"  Had  I  been,  a  few  hours  earlier,  made  aware  of  this  case, 
I  would  not  have  troubled  you  with  a  word  ;  but  I  would  have 
seen  that  the  process  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  this  State  was  so 
executed  as  to  protect  its  citizens  accused  of  such  offences  from 
arrest,  other  than  under  the  appropriate  process  of  the  court/' 

These  words  have  the  ring  of  the  true  metal.  They  show 
that  the  intellect  and  the  spirit  of  URIAH  TRACY  still  live  in  the 
soul  of  his  grandson. 

As  showing  the  same  disregard  of  law,  the  arrest  and 
murderous  execution  of  Mrs.  SURRATT  should  be  mentioned. 
This  was  done  unconstitutionally  by  a  military  court,  without 
sufficient  evidence  of  guilt.  In  like  manner,  Captain  WIRTZ 
was  arrested  and  executed  under  sentence  of  an  unconstitu 
tional  military  court,  in  defiance  of  law.  Captain  WIRTZ  was 
charged  with  cruelty  to  prisoners  at  Andersonville.  The  real 
criminal,  it  appears,  was  Secretary  STANTON,  who  refused  or 
neglected  to  remove  the  prisoners,  though  he  knew  that  he 
had  full  permission  from  Colonel  OULD  to  do  so. 

HABEAS  CORPUS. — HENRY  LAURENS  was  President  of  the 
Continental  Congress  in  1779.  In  1780  he  was  sent  as  Minis 
ter  to  Holland.  On  his  way  he  was  captured,  and  imprisoned 
in  the  Tower  of  London  for  fourteen  months.  When  Lord 
SHELBURNE  became  Premier,  LAURENS  was  brought  up  on 
habeas  corpus,  and  released.  After  his  release,  he  was  treated 
with  great  kindness  and  respect  by  the  British  authorities.  He 
dined  with  Lord  SHELBURNE.  After  dinner,  the  conversation 
turned  on  the  separation  of  the  two  countries.  Lord  SHEL 
BURNE  remarked  :  "  I  am  sorry  for  your  people."  "  Why  so  ?  " 
asked  LAURENS.  "  They  will  lose  the  habeas  corpus"  was  the 
reply.  "  Lose  the  habeas  corpus  !  "  said  LAURENS.  "  Yes," 
said  Lord  SHELBURNE.  "  We  purchased  it  with  centuries  of 
wrangling,  many  years  of  fighting,  and  had  it  confirmed  by  at 
least  fifty  acts  of  Parliament.  All  this  taught  the  nation  its 
value  ;  and  it  is  so  ingrained  into  their  creed,  as  the  very  foun 
dation  of  their  liberty,  that  no  man  or  party  will  ever  dare  to 
trample  on  it.  Your  people  will  pick  it  up,  and  attempt  to  use 
it ;  but,  having  cost  them  nothing,  they  will  not  know  how  to 
appreciate  it.  At  the  first  great  internal  feud  that  you  have, 


EEMARKS.  379 

the  majority  will  trample  upon  it,  and  the  people  will  permit  it 
to  be  done,  and  so  will  go  your  liberty." — Published  Journal 
of  HENRY  LAURENS. 

This  prophecy  was  fulfilled  in  1861,  and  afterwards. 

8.  CURRENT  SLANDERS. — The  great  masters  of  reason  have 
shown  why  and  how  it  is  that  passion  leads  the  mind  into  errors 
of  opinion.  When  the  public  mind  was  excited  by  those  pas 
sions  which  war  generates,  errors  were  rife  in  the  land.  Sus 
picion  took  the  place  of  evidence,  and 

"  trifles  light  as  air 
Were  confirmations  strong  as  proof  of  Holy  Writ " 

against  men  perfectly  innocent.  A  word  uttered  by  a  Demo 
crat  was  sufficient  to  ground  a  charge  upon.  The  following 
are  specimens  of  current  slanders  and  perversions  of  the  truth  : 

When  Governor  HORATIO  SEYMOUR,  for  the  purpose  of  dis 
persing  a  mob  in  the  city  of  New  York,  said  to  them,  in  a  cour 
teous  way,  at  the  opening  of  his  speech,  "  My  Friends,"  he  was 
charged,  on  the  ground  of  using  these  two  words,  that  lie 
approved  of  the  doings  of  the  mob,  and  was  one  with  them  in 
feeling  and  opinion.  This  slanderous  charge  was,  upon  this 
evidence,  reiterated  for  a  long  time,  contrary  to  what  every 
right-minded  man  knew  to  be  the  fact. 

For  a  considerable  time  it  was  as  much  as  a  man's  reputation 
for  patriotism  was  worth  to  utter  a  word  about  "  the  Prince  of 
Peace."  When,  in  April,  1864,  ALEXANDER  LONG,  Member  of 
Congress  from  Ohio,  brought  forward  a  resolution  in  favor  of 
peace,  and  acknowledging  the  independence  of  the  Seceded 
States,  some  of  the  small  DANTONS  and  MARATS  of  that  body 
brought  forward  resolutions  for  censuring  or  expelling  him,  on 
the  hypocritical  charge  of  aiding  traitors.  This  was  a  current 
charge  made  by  Republicans  against  a  man  who  differed  from 
them  on  measures  of  public  policy. 

Chief-Justice  TANEY  for  years  has  been  slanderously 
charged  with  deciding,  in  the  case  of  "DRED  SCOTT,"  that 
"  the  negro  has  no  rights  which  a  white  man  is  bound  to 
respect."  This  charge  has  been  repeated  by  editors  of  papers, 
candidates  for  Congress,  members  of  Congress,  and  others  in 


380  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

high  standing  in  the  Republican  party ;  when  they  had  only 
to  read  what  he  did  say,  in  order  to  know  the  falsity  of  the 
charge,  if  they  were  willing  to  know  it.  But  there  are  certain 
minds  that  have  an  affinity  for  falsehoods,  especially  profitable 
falsehoods. 

What  he  did  say  was  this :  "  They  had,  for  more  than  a 
century  before,  been  regarded  as  beings  of  an  inferior  order, 
and  altogether  unfit  to  associate  with  the  white  race,  either  in 
social  or  political  relations ;  and  so  far  inferior,  that  they  had 
no  rights  which  the  white  man  was  bound  to  respect ;  and  that 
the  negro  might  justly  and  lawfully  be  reduced  to  slavery  for 
his  benefit."  This  is  only  the  statement  of  an  historical  fact. 

Another  falsehood,  which  some  of  the  Republican  party,  in 
their  wanton  attacks  npon  the  Administration  of  President 
BUCHANAN,  uttered,  was  the  following  charge  against  Hon. 
ISAAC  TOUCEY,  his  Secretary  of  the  Navy :  "  He  scattered  the 
vessels  then  under  his  command  all  over  the  world,  so  that, 
when  another  and  a  worthier  citizen  of  your  State  came  to 
administer  the  affairs  of  the  same  department,  the  whole  navy 
under  his  command  was  one  vessel  with  five  guns  spiked" 

This  slander  was  uttered  by  Senator  JOHN  SHERMAN,  of 
Ohio,  in  a  speech  delivered  in  Bridgeport  in  the  spring  of  1866. 
From  the  published  statement  of  Report  of  Committee  No.  37 
of  the  Senate,  it  appears  that  there  was  not  the  slightest  foun 
dation  for  the  charge.  Mr.  TOUCEY,  as  he  always  has  done,  can 
stand  before  the  world  without  fear  and  without  reproach ; 
while  Mr.  SHERMAN  must  stand  before  the  country  as  he  did 
when  he  acknowledged  that  he  recommended  HELPER'S  book 
without  having  read  it. 

9.  PERVERSION  OF  PHILOLOGY. — It  is  not  necessary  to  show 
what  were  Dr.  NOAH  WEBSTER'S  eminent  qualifications  for  giv 
ing  correct  definitions  of  political  terms,  especially  of  those 
which  relate  to  our  own  institutions.  As  he  composed  an 
American  Dictionary  of  the  English  language,  he  was  careful 
to  give  exact  definitions  of  political  terms,  according  to  their 
use  in  this  country.  He  remarks,  in  the  Preface :  "  In  many 
cases,  the  nature  of  our  Governments  "  (State  and  Federal), 
"  and  of  our  civil  institutions,  requires  an  appropriate  language 


REMARKS.  381 

in  the  definition  of  words,  even  when  the  words  express  the 
same  thing."  He  expected  "  the  people  of  England,"  as  well 
as  the  "  youth  of  the  United  States,','  to  look  to  an  American 
Dictionary  as  their  "  guide "  to  the  American  meaning  of 
words. 

In  the  year  1864  an  edition  of  WEBSTER'S  Dictionary  was 
published,  in  which  the  definitions  of  certain  political  terms 
were  altered,  so  that  they  do  not  show  the  meaning  which  he 
attached  to  those  words  as  exhibited  in  the  work  prepared  by 
himself. 

And  it  so  happens  that  the  definitions,  as  they  stand  in  Dr. 
WEBSTER'S  work  prepared  by  himself,  are  in  accordance  with 
the  opinions  and  teaching  of  the  framers  and  fathers  of  the 
Federal  Constitution,  and  of  the  ablest  statesmen  and  writers, 
among  whom  may  be  reckoned  himself ;  while  the  definitions 
now  standing  in  the  book  bearing  his  name,  and  published  in 
1864,  are  more  in  accordance  with  the  notions  of  certain  politi 
cal  sciolists  who  sprang  up  during  the  war.  The  following  are 
some  of  the  alterations  : 

COMPACT.  "  It  is  more  generally  applied  to  agreements  be 
tween  nations  and  States,  as  treaties  and  confederacies.  So  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  a  political  contract  between 
the  States ;  a  national  compact"  Republican  sciolists  said  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  not  a  compact  between  the 
States ;  so  this  statement  of  Dr.  WEBSTER  is  omitted  in  the 
edition  of  1864. 

CONGRESS.  "  The  Assembly  of  the  Senators  and  delegates 
of  the  several  United  States  of  North  America,  according  to 
the  present  Constitution,  or  political  compact,  by  which  they 
are  united  in  a  Federal  republic"  This,  too,  is  omitted  in  the 
edition  of  1864. 

CONSTITUTION.  "  In  free  States,  the  Constitution  is  para 
mount  to  the  statutes  or  laws  enacted  by  the  Legislature,  limit 
ing  and  controlling  its  powers ;  and  in  the  United  States  the 
Legislature  is  created  and  its  powers  designated  by  the  Consti 
tution."  This  definition  of  Dr.  WEBSTER  does  not  agree  with 
the  notions  of  those  sciolists  who  exalted  the  power  of  Congress 
and  the  President  above  the  Constitution.  This  was  omitted  in 
the  edition  of  1864. 


382  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

CONFEDERATION.  "  The  United  States  are  sometimes  called 
a  "  confederation"  This  is  omitted  in  the  edition  of  1864. 

DEMOCRAT.  "  One  who  adheres  to  a  government  by  the 
people,  or  favors  the  extension  of  the  right  of  suffrage  to  all 
classes  of  men."  This  is  omitted  in  the  edition  of  1864. 

FEDERAL.  "  Consisting  of  a  compact  "between  parties,  par 
ticularly  and  chiefly  between  States  and  nations ;  founded  on 
alliance  by  contract  or  mutual  agreement;  as  a  federal  gov 
ernment,  such  as  that  of  the  United  States"  This  does  not 
suit  the  notions  of  the  political  sciolists.  This  is  omitted  in  the 
edition  of  1864. 

SOVEREIGNTY.  "  Supreme  power  ;  supremacy  ;  the  posses 
sion  of  the  highest  power,  or  uncontrollable  power."  This-  is 
omitted  in  the  edition  of  1864,  and  the  following  incorrect  defi 
nition  substituted :  "  The  exercise  of,  or  the  right  to  exercise, 
supreme  power." 

If  alterations  like  these  are  not  a  fraud  on  the  public,  they 
are  an  indignity  to  Dr.  WEBSTER,  who,  being  dead,  is  not 
allowed  to  speak  to  his  friends,  the  people  of  the  United  States. 

10.  THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  DECEIVED  THE  NORTH. — 
When  the  Southern  Confederacy  was  tricked  into  the  unwise 
and  imprudent  attack  upon  Fort  Sumter,  the  cry  was  raised  all 
over  the  Northern  States,  "  The  Constitution  must  be  main 
tained  ; "  "  The  Union  must  be  preserved ;  "  "  The  flag  must 
be  sustained."  To  these  cries,  to  these  declarations,  the  people 
responded,  " Amen"  In  proof  of  the  sincerity  of  these  decla 
rations,  the  platform  of  the  Republican  party  was  appealed  to, 
which  declares  the  inviolability  of  State  rights  ;  the  inaugural 
message  of  Mr.  LINCOLN  was  appealed  to,  in  which  he  declares 
that  he  had  no  right  nor  inclination  to  interfere  with  slavery  in 
the  States  ;  the  Resolution  of  Congress  in  July,  1861,  introduced 
in  the  House  by  Mr.  CRITTENDEN,  and  by  ANDREW  JOHNSON  in 
the  Senate,  which  was  passed  by  an  almost  unanimous  vote, 
was  appealed  to.  In  this  Resolution  Congress  say :  "  That  in 
this  national  emergency,  Congress,  banishing  all  feeling  of  mere 
passion  and  resentment,  will  recollect  only  its  duty  to  the 
whole  country  ;  that  this  war  is  not  waged,  on  otir  part,  in  any 
spirit  of  oppression,  or  for  any  purpose  of  conquest  or  subjuga- 


REMAKES.  383 

tion,  or  of  overthrowing  or  interfering  with  the  rights  or  estab 
lished  institutions  of  those  States,  but  to  defend  and  maintain 
the  supremacy  of  the  Constitution,  and  preserve  the  Union, 
with  all  the  dignity  and  equality  of  the  rights  of  the  United 
States  unimpaired  ;  and  that,  as  these  objects  are  obtained,  the 
war  ought  to  cease." 

The  Secretary  of  "War,  Mr.  CAMERON,  in  August,  1861, 
wrote  a  letter  to  General  BUTLER,  in  which  he  says  :  "  It  is  the 
desire  of  the  President  that  all  existing  rights  in  all  the  States 
be  fully  respected  and  maintained.  The  war  now  prosecuted  on 
the  part  of  the  Federal  Government  is  a  war  for  the  Union,  for 
the  preservation  of  all  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  States, 
and  of  the  citizens  of  the  States  in  the  Union." 

In  consequence  of  these  declarations  and  appeals,  urged  by 
the  press,  the  conservative  men  of  the  North,  under  the  im 
pulse  of  patriotism,  poured  out  their  money,  their  blood,  and 
their  lives  on  Southern  soil. 

Having  thus  deluded  the  people  of  the  North  into  support 
ing  the  war,  the  Federal  Government  violated  the  Constitution ; 
violated  the  rights  of  the  States  and  of  the  individual  citizens 
thereof;  dismissed  General  MCCLELLAN  because  he  adhered  to 
their  promises,  which  they  violated ;  issued  an  emancipation 
proclamation,  and  changed  what  was  professed  to  be  a  constitu 
tional  war  into  an  abolition  war.  It  seduced  the  North  by  false 
professions,  deceived  the  Democratic  party,  and  the  patriotic 
and  brave  soldiers,  whose  blood  now  cries  from  the  ground 
against  their  deceivers. 

THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  DECEIVED  THE  SOUTH. — By  the 
declarations  and  appeals  above  mentioned,  it  persuaded  multi 
tudes  to  withhold  themselves  from  the  Secession  movement, 
and  afterwards,  by  proclamations  and  otherwise,  it  encouraged 
the  Southern  States  to  return,  only  to  find  the  doors  of  Con 
gress  closed  against  their  Senators  and  Representatives. 

If  the  Southern  States  look  back  upon  the  inducements 
offered  them  to  return  to  the  Union  by  President  LINCOLN,  and 
by  the  Secretary  of  State  in  his  foreign  correspondence,  and  by 
other  prominent  men  and  oflicials  ;  if  they  look  back  upon  the 
high-raised  and  reasonable  hopes  generally  entertained  in  the 


384  THE    SECTIONAL    CONTROVERSY. 

country  of  the  speedy  restoration  of  the  seceded  States  to  their 
former  relations  in  the  Union,  when  the  armies  of  LEE  and 
JOHNSON  surrendered  in  good  faith  to  the  armies  of  GRANT  and 
SHERMAN  ;  and  if  they  call  to  mind  the  bitter  reception  they 
met  with,  the  language  employed  about  the  South,  such  as  was 
employed  by  the  enemies  of  Israel  about  Jerusalem,  "  Raze  it ! 
raze  it !  " — such  as  was  employed  in  the  Roman  Senate  about 
Carthage,  "  Delenda  est  Carthago  !  delenda  est  Carthago  !  " — 
if  they  thus  call  to  mind  the  contrast  between  promise  and  per 
formance,  they  can  hardly  fail  to  exclaim,  in  view  of  the  per 
fidy,  "  Oh,  worse  than  Punic  faith  !  " 

11.  OBJECT  OF  THE  SECESSION  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES. — 
The  declared  object  was,  to  maintain  their  constitutional  rights. 
These  rights,  they  averred,  had  been  infringed  by  a  loose 
and  false  construction  of  the  Constitution,  which  practically, 
through  a  long  series  of  years,  increased  the  delegated  powers, 
and  diminished  the  reserved  rights,  to  an  alarming  extent ;  par 
ticularly  in  regard  to  internal  improvements,  the  tariff,  the 
rights  in  territories,  the  rights  of  the  States  to  manage  their 
internal  concerns,  the  interference  of  the  North  with  the  insti 
tution  of  slavery,  and  the  refusal  of  Northern  States,  by  legisla 
tive  enactments,  to  perform  their  constitutional  obligation  in 
regard  to  the  restoration  of  fugitive  slaves. 

They  professed  a  strong  attachment  to  the  Union,  which 
they  had  proved  by  their  obedience  to  the  Constitution  and 
their  defence  of  its  provisions,  from  the  first  to  1860.  The 
object  of  the  Southern  States  in  seceding  is  declared  by  the 
Commissioner,  Judge  A.  H.  HANDY,  sent  by  Mississippi  to  the 
State  of  Maryland  in  1861,  as  follows :  "  Secession  is  not  in 
tended  to  break  up  the  present  Government,  but  to  perpetuate 
it.  We  do  not  propose  to  go  out  by  way  of  breaking  up  or 
destroying  the  Union,  as  our  fathers  gave  it  to  us,  but  we  go 
out  for  the  purpose  of  getting  further  guarantees  and  securities 
for  our  rights — not  by  a  convention  of  all  the  Southern  States, 
nor  by  Congressional  tricks,  which  have  failed  in  time  past,  and 
will  fail  again ;  but  our  plan  is,  for  the  Southern  States  to  with 
draw  from  the  Union  for  the  present,  to  allow  amendments  to 
the  Constitution  to  be  made,  guaranteeing  our  just  rights  ;  and 


REMAKES.  385 

if  the  Northern  States  will  not  make  the  amendments  by  which 
those  rights  shall  be  secured  to  us,  then  we  must  secure  them 
the  best  way  we  can.  This  question  of  slavery  must  be  secured 
now,  or  never.  The  country  has  been  agitated  by  it  for  the 
last  twenty  or  thirty  years.  It  has  been  a  festering  sore  upon 
the  body  politic,  and  many  remedies  have  failed  ;  we  must  try 
amputation  to  bring  it  to  a  healthy  state.  We  must  have 
amendments  to  the  Constitution,  and  if  we  cannot  get  them, 
we  must  set  up  for  ourselves." 

12.  POLITICAL  RIGHT  OP  SECESSION. — That  the  sovereign 
States  have  a  right  to  resume  the  powers  which  they  had  dele 
gated  to  the  Federal  Government,  was  the  current  doctrine 
until  1861.  In  the  work  already  mentioned — "  Eighty  Years 
of  Republican  Government  in  the  United  States  " — written  by 
an  intelligent  Englishman,  and  published  in  1868,  is  the  follow 
ing  truthful  remark :  "  The  doctrine  that  the  States  were  left 
free  to  choose  whether  they  would  remain  in  the  Union,  or 
detach  themselves  from  it,  was  never  refuted,  though  it  was 
occasionally  contradicted,  until  the  Southern  States  unwisely 
precipitated  the  decision  in  1861." 

This  doctrine  was  announced  distinctly  in  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  as  well  in  the  words  of  that  instrument  as  in  the 
fact  of  the  secession  of  the  States  from  the  union  with  Great 
Britain. 

"When  JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS  presented  a  petition  from  citi 
zens  of  Massachusetts  for  the  dissolution  of  the  Union,  a  motion 
was  made  to  expel  him.  Mr.  ADAMS,  in  his  defense,  called  on 
the  clerk  to  read  the  first  two  paragraphs  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence.  After  the  clerk  had  read  the  sentence  which 
declares  "  the  right  and  duty  to  throw  off  such  governments," 
Mr.  ADAMS  added,  "  '  Right  and  duty  to  abolish  it.'  Now,  sir, 
if  there  is  a  principle  sacred  on  earth,  and  established  by  the 
instrument  just  read,  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  alter,  to 
change,  to  destroy  the  government,  if  it  becomes  oppressive  to 
them." 

Each  one  of  the  thirteen  States  made  its  own  distinct  decla 
ration  in  favor  of  the  right  of  secession.  Disregarding  equally 
her  charter  and  the  laws  of  England,  Massachusetts  established 


386  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

for  herself  an  independent  government,  similar  to  those  of  the 
Grecian  republics. — CHALMERS,  vol.  i.,  682. 

Again,  in  the  very  act  of  departing  from  the  Union  formed 
by  the  old  Federal  Constitution,  and  forming  a  new  Union 
under  the  new  Federal  Constitution,  the  States  recognized  the 
right  of  secession. 

Moreover,  several  of  the  States  in  their  act  in  convention 
of  adopting  the  Constitution,  reserved  to  the  people  of  the 
States  the  right  to  resume  the  powers  delegated  to  the  Federal 
Government.  In  the  Convention  of  Virginia,  where  it  received 
the  fullest  and  most  able  discussion,  the  fact  that  the  State 
could  resume  the  delegated  powers  was  assigned  as  a  reason 
why  they  should  adopt  the  Constitution  as  a  matter  of  experi 
ment. 

Every  one  who  has  studied  the  constitutional  history  of  this 
country,  knows  that  the  States,  in  1787-8,  placed  a  higher 
value  on  their  reserved  rights  than  they  did  on  the  present  Fed 
eral  Constitution  ;  that  they  would  not  have  adopted  that  in: 
strument  unless  they  had  considered  those  rights  as  completely 
secured  to  them ;  that  they  were  thoroughly  opposed  to  con 
solidation  ;  that  they  were  thoroughly  determined  to  preserve 
those  precious  rights  in  which  their  liberties  were  involved. 

Common  sense  declares  that,  if  the  Federal  Government 
should  practically,  directly  or  indirectly,  abolish  any  of  those 
precious  vital  rights,  the  States  would  be  justified  in  taking 
appropriate  means  for  their  preservation.  They  are  indeed 
under  as  great,  or  greater  obligations  to  protect  their  reserved 
rights  against  the  encroachments  of  the  Federal  Government, 
as  they  are  to  protect  the  powers  which  they  delegated  to  the 
Federal  Government  against  the  encroachments  of  foreign  na 
tions. 

To  say  that  these  precious  reserved  rights  ought  not  to  be 
protected,  if  need  be,  at  every  hazard,  would  be  to  say  that 
they  are  of  no  value,  and  that  the  States  ought  not  to  have  any 
reserved  rights,  and  that  the  State  governments  ought  all  to  be 
swept  away  ;  which  would  be  an  absurdity.  Better  far  would 
it  be  for  the  States  to  retire  peaceably  from  the  Union,  if  they 
could  not  preserve  their  reserved  rights  in  it.  In  this  way  they 
would  only  show  that,  like  the  States  in  1787-8,  they  value 


REMAEKS.  387 

their  reserved  rights  more  than  a  Union,  just  as  those  States 
then  did.' 

Mr.  LINCOLN'S  opinion  on  the  right  of  secession  has  already 
been  quoted.  Mr.  SEWAED,  in  1856,  used  the  following  lan 
guage  :  u  Then  the  free  States  and  the  slave  States  of  the 
Atlantic,  divided,  and  warring  with  each  other,  would  disgust 
the  free  States  of  the  Pacific,  and  they  would  have  abundant 
reason  and  justification  for  withdrawing  from  a  union  produc 
tive  no  longer  of  peace  and  liberty  to  themselves.33 

In  1843,  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts  passed  the  follow 
ing  resolutions :  u  1.  Resolved,  That  the  annexation  of  Texas 
is  ipso  facto  a  dissolution  of  the  Union.  2.  Resolved,  That 
Texas,  being  annexed,  Massachusetts  is  out  of  the  Union." 

Such,  and  other  facts  and  arguments,  were  urged  by  the 
Southern  States  in  favor  of  the  political  right  of  secession. 

The  validity  of  such  arguments,  though  long  extensively 
admitted  in  the  Northern  States,  was,  in  1861,  denied.  Two 
branches  of  the  Federal  Government,  representing  only  those 
States,  took  strong  ground  against  the  right  of  secession,  and 
the  validity  of  the  ordinances  of  secession  adopted  in  1860-1  by 
the  Southern  States.  This  was  done  by  the  President  in  his 
messages  and  proclamations ;  by  the  Secretary  of  State  in  his 
correspondence  with  the  Southern  Commissioners,  and  with  our 
Ministers  abroad,  and  by  the  other  members  of  the  Cabinet ; 
by  Congress  ;  by  the  Northern  press  generally. 

It  is  believed  that  in  1860-1,  and  for  a  considerable  period 
afterwards,  that  it  was  the  general,  if  not  the  universal  opinion 
of  the  Republican  party,  that  the  seceded  States,  so-called,  were 
still  in  the  Union  /  but  that  many  of  the  inhabitants  were,  as 
individuals,  rebels.  This  was  the  theory  upon  which  the  war 
was  commenced,  and  for  a  long  time  waged  by  the  Northern 
States. 

But  afterwards,  when  revenge  had  ascended  to  the  seat  of 
justice,  it  became  convenient  for  Congress  to  act  occasionally 
upon  either  of  two  theories,  according  as  the  one  or  the  other 
w^ould  enable  it  to  inflict  the  greatest  amount  of  injury  upon 
the  South — namely,  that  the  States  were  in  the  Union  to  suf 
fer  all  the  evils  of  rebellion,  and  that  they  were  out  of  the 
Union  to  suffer  all  the  evils  of  a  conquered  foreign  nation ; 


388  THE   SECTIONAL   CONTROVERSY. 

while  they  were  not  allowed  to  have  the  advantages  of  either 
position,  but  the  disadvantages  of  both. 

13.  A  PROPHETIC  VOICE. — While  the  difficulties  between 
Parliament  and  the  American  colonies  were  pending,  Lord 
CHATHAM,  in  a  celebrated  speech,  said :  "  I  rejoice  that  Amer 
ica  has  resisted  ;  " — because  they  resisted  upon  constitutional 
grounds.  While  the  Ministers  were  pressing  the  adoption  of 
measures  of  military  coercion,  in  the  same  speech  he  said  :  "  In 
such  a  cause  your  success  will  be  hazardous.  America,  if  she 
fell,  would  fall  like  a  strong  man ;  she  would  embrace  the  pil 
lars  of  the  State,  and  pull  down  the  Constitution  along  with 
her."  Fortunately  for  Great  Britain,  America  did  not  fall,  and 
did  not  pull  dowrn  the  pillars  of  the  English  Constitution. 

The  States  had  experienced  enough  of  military  coercion 
from  Great  Britain  ;  and  accordingly  they  did  not  grant,  in  the 
Federal  Constitution,  the  right  of  the  Federal  Government  to 
coerce  themselves  by  military  force. 

Unfortunately  for  the  North,  it  entered  on  a  war  for  which 
the  Constitution  makes  no  provision ;  it  carried  it  on  "  outside 
of  the  Constitution ; "  and  has  attempted  "  to  reconstruct " 
the  Southern  States  "  outside  of  the  Constitution."  The  South 
fell  like  a  strong  man  •  she  embraced  the  pillars  of  the  State, 
and  pulled  down  the  Constitution  along  with  her.  A  govern 
ment  of  constitutional  laws  became  a  government  of  men. 
"  Where  law  ends,  tyranny  begins" 

In  April  and  May,  1861,  President  LINCOLN,  by  six  formal 
acts,  and  afterwards,  until  the  close  of  his  life,  by  many  acts, 
violated  the  Federal  Constitution,  and,  thus  far,  made  an  end 
of  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  and  brought  in  tyranny  in  its 
place.  In  July,  1861,  Congress  began  a  series  of  violations  of 
the  Constitution,  continued  to  the  present  time,  and,  thus  far 
have  made  an  end  of  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  and  brought 
in  tyranny  in  its  place.  Under  this  tyranny,  the  country  has 
been  suffering  for  seven  long  years.  Will  the  suffering  people 
of  the  States  arise  in  their  might  and  restore  constitutional 
liberty  ?  May  a  gracious  Providence  encourage  them  to  return 
to  the  first  principles  of  our  Federal  Government,  and  "  restore 
judges  as  at  the  first,  and  counsellors  as  at  the  beginning." 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


C'D 


W25B5-8P 


REC'D  LC 


T995 


' 


-i _ 


BECJOFFITT 


'^12^2004  - 


DEC* 


LD  21A.-60m-3,'65 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


General  Ubrar 
UnivershyofCab 

^      2Sfer65Sr 


I 


